Basic Cheese Detector

[Andorax]

I've seen a whole world of debate about low-OP versus high-OP...about what is considered power campaigns. I've heard talk about limiting the tier-busting power of wizards and clerics through the so-called "Gentleman's Agreement". And taken all together, I've formed a theory.

It's not for everyone, it's not going to be agreed with by quite a few people...in fact, I expect to hear a lot of disagreement and debate. However, it's a guideline that seems to me to work fairly well.


Ok, to start off with, we're going to state a few facts and make a few assumptions:

1) There is a lot...a LOT of 3.X material out there. Multiple game worlds' worth of source materials, suppliments of many different flavors.

2) 3.X (well, aside from Pathfinder) is out of production. WotC has closed that door and locked it a few years ago, and isn't losing *any* sleep over resolving issues that people who haven't gotten on the 4th edition train are having.

3) Everything written for 3.X was written with a deadline, intended to be published in a timely manner, for profit, with a *reasonable* effort at quality control expended, but certainly no Herculean efforts to assure absolute compatability and perfection.


With that in mind, I'd invite you to consider a few things:

A) It is often said that D&D can be played many ways, that there is room for various different styles, and that there isn't a lot of room for (or tolerance of) telling someone "you're doing it wrong".

B) With that said, we can make some assumptions about how the designers/authors/creators are presuming that the game would normally be played. These assumptions come from their own comments and suggestions, but they also come from what, to me, are pretty obvious sources. Villains, NPCs, and often heroes (see pre-generated characters in some adventures) are not even remotely optimized by the standards commonly tossed around here.

Let me take you through a couple of examples, if you have the resources to dig them up.

There's an old 3.0 accessory entitled Enemies and Allies which has in it, among other things, Appendix 2: Iconic Charcters. The actual characters they've used as "the example monk" "the example rogue" etc...Lidda, Redgar, that lot. Presented as 5th, 10th, and 15th level characters. Looking them over, there's a lot of things I'm seeing.

Alhandra the Paladin has Weapon Focus (longsword)
Devis the Bard, at 5th level, still carries mundane torches around.
Hennet the Sorcerer doesn't know color spray OR grease OR glitterdust
Jozan the Cleric doesn't seem to be memorizing any of the core CODZilla spells, and has more item creation feats than metamagics.

Admittedly, this is 3.0, so the amount of source material hasn't swolen to vast proportions yet, but the fact remains that at the time this was written, people like Bruce Cordell and Skip Williams figured you could take four of these level 5 characters into a 5th level module and have a great time playing D&D.

Fast forward...a lot...to when Pathfinder was the new adventure path, not an actual alternate 3.X ruleset. I'm looking at the Rise of the Runelords adventure 4, Fortress of the Stone Giants. There, on pages 92 and 93 are...pregenerated characters at 10th level.

Valeros the Fighter has Greater Weapon Focus as a feat.
Seoni the Sorcerer ALSO doesn't have color spray, grease or glitterdust. She does have 7 direct damage/attack spells AND Greater Spell Focus (Evocation).
Merisiel the Rogue has Int as her dump stat (8), and even though she has a good hide check, her sole source of invisibility is a couple of potions (or Seoni's help).
Kyra the Cleric (yes, they're all 10th level straight-up characters) has Extra Turning, but appears to have no use for it other than...actually turning undead with it.


Again, this isn't truly a source with the full range of everything 3.X published available to it...being Paizo-manufactured, it is bound by SRD+Pathfinder stuff. But to me, it is once again indicative of the kind of game that Wolfgang Baur thought you'd be playing...that these four fatally low-OP characters are genuinely expected to stand a chance in this adventure.



What I'm seeing here is that a generally-accepted method of play that's considered 'normal' hereabouts is, in fact, radically different from what the people who wrote the game intended. I'm not saying that either group is "playing it wrong"...see (1) above...but what I am saying, and seeing, is that the overall expectations and underlying assumptions that seem to be in place in the majority of discussions here are quite a bit different from how the game, modules, CR system, and so forth were designed.

I'd even go so far as to say the Tier system itself is a symptom of this mentality...that nobody "breaks" the game if they're playing as it was originally intended and expected.



Which brings me to the Basic Cheese Detector. It's not going to catch everything...I doubt it even catches the majority of things. But it should be one of your first warning signs that you're in the "power has crept a long ways, and I'm right square in the middle of the power creep camp", and have drifted some sizable difference away from how the game was originally expected to play out.



Rule 1: If another source makes an existing option WAY better then it is without it, chances are that combination was never intended, anticipated, or tested.


Let's take a look at a popular example or two.

Base: Warlock + Hellfire Warlock (FCII). A prestige class that allows the warlock to kick their damage up a significant notch (an extra 6d6)...for a price...taking a point of Con damage. It even goes so far as to say that if you can't take the damage (no Con, immune to Con damage) you can't activate this ability.

Intent: An ability that can be used PART of the time, that comes with a cost and bears a risk. A Wand of Lesser Restoration can be used, at a different cost (time, actions, GP), to mitigate this cost, but certainly not eliminate it.

Combo: Now, we add a Binder (1) of Naberius (ToM). This combination allows you to regenerate 1 point of Con damage every round, essentially cancelling out the cost.

Result: An ability that was intended to be used part of the time, at personal cost, is now "always on". The mitigation is trivial, essentially unbreakable...the balancing factor ignored.

Analysis: Adding the ability to bind Naberius, and thus perpetually regenerate a point of ability damage, to a class that can allow you to fuel an extra ability with continuous ability damage literally every round of combat is MUCH more powerful. This is a cheesy combination.


Base: Dwarven Psionicist picks up a couple of different means to cut the cost of psi point expendatures. Earth Power (RoS) lets him reduce the cost of powers he manifests by 1 point. The Torc of Power Preservation also reduces the cost of all powers by 1.

Intent: In and of themselves, it's not unreasonable, though it's creeping up on Rule 3 below. A reasonably logical feat (with its own feat tax) and a fairly expensive item allowing for the character to extend their resources out further during the day.

Combo: Now, give that same Dwarf the Bestow Power power. At a cost of 3 psi points, he can grant 2 power points to any psionic creature within 20'...one less than the cost of the power, that's fair? Until you reduce the power's cost to 1, and target yourself with it.

Result: A quick break after every fight means that our dwarven Psionicist is at full PP for every situation.

Analysis: Could it be more clear that an item, even a modestly expensive one, used to completely eliminate a Psion's need to rest is way out of scale with its intended effect? This is only one among many "infinite combo" situations, but one that most certainly illustrates the cheese inherent in combining abilities that were never intended.



Rule 2: If a given feat, ACF, or other choice is inherently and inevitably better such that it might as well be a rewritten class feature, chances are it's overpowered.

Two immediate offenders leap to mind here.

Base: Druid with Natural Spell feat. The ability to wildshape allows for lots of combat capabilities, while the ability to be a full progression caster allows for considerable spellpower. It's "unfun" to have to swap back and forth between do-stuff-in-combat form and cast-my-spells form.

Intent: Allow for the Druid to not burn through all their wildshapes just by having to cast a few spells (say, if the Druid's also the party's healer). Keep from having an "unfun" option.

Reality: Druids don't get a feat at 6th level. This is a feat-consuming class feature that no druid (that hasn't for some reason traded away their wild shape ability) would even hesitate for a moment to grab. The combat benefits of being wild-shaped all the time are too strong to give up for a moment once they're available, partly due to additional sources introducing still more and more powerful animals to wildshape into.

Analysis: Wild shape was probably intended to be something that you changed out from time to time, not something you spent all of your time in from the moment you're able to do so. A feat that was intended for preventing 'unfun' options is overused and overtaken to the point of being necessary.


Base: Barbarian with the Lion Spirit Totem ACF (CC) at the cost of their fast movement.

Intent: Emulate a lion in being able to pounce (and thus get multiple/iterative attacks at the end of a charge).

Reality: Charge -> full attack is way too good of an option to ever pass up. Unless a particularly unusual build is intended or the campaign isn't expected to go beyond 5th level, every sensible player is going to opt for the Lion Spirit Totem, every time.

Analysis: Beyond taking over the Barbarian class, this ability is sufficiently powerful that it's worked its way into just about every melee combatant build that doesn't outright require starting and staying Lawful (and a few of those even shoehorn it in). Warblades dip LST Barb 1. Rogues dip LST Barb 1. Clerics dip LST Barb 1! If an alternate class feature turns a particular class into the favored dip of every melee class, they it's pretty likely that there is cheese at play here.



Rule 3: Multiple ways to accomplish the same effect are not intended to be collected, surfed and stacked.

The intent here is to allow alternate ways to achieve the same goal, not to over-focus a character into one uber-trick.This is something I see all too often, and is a core of high-end optimization. Gather together EVERYTHING that supports a particular build and focus that build over and over again until it does its one thing exceptionally well.

Examples are too numerous to count, but I'll hit on some favorites:

Base: Stacking metamagic reducers onto expensive damage-multiplying spells (the "mailman").

Intent: On its own, Arcane Thesis isn't bad...a signature spell the character's particularly good at. On its own, the Incantatrix isn't bad...become generally better at metamagic as a capstone. Easy Metamagic, and so forth...they're not unreasonable.

Reality: Park all of the meta-reducers, metamagic multipliers, and "bonus" metamagics that can provide a negative level result together, and you can create a character that drops bags of dice with 2nd level spell slots.

Analysis: 15th level arcane casters are expected to do 30d6 damage...with their 6th level disintegrates! Chances are, if a 15th level character can beat this damage more reliably and use a spell slot far lower to do it...then something's not right here.


Base: Weapon Envy. Goliaths have powerful build. Monkey Grip lets you use an oversized weapon, and Wield Oversized Weapon lets you use a greatly oversized weapon. Heavy weapons "count" as bigger, and there are spells and powers to make you bigger in reality.

Intent: Multiple means by which a warrior can smack things with a somewhat-bigger-than-normal weapon.

Reality: 14' tall Goliaths hitting things with swords three times as long as they are tall...swords that if the DM is paying attention won't fit around most dungeon corridors.

Analysis: Does it realistically make sense to stack the bigger weapon abilities on top of one another to absurd levels? It's LEGAL, but that's not the point...most of what I'm talking about here is legal. The question is, are you blinding yourself to the absurdity of what you're doing for the sake of another slice of oh-so-tasty cheese?


Ultimately, what I'm looking for here is to try and find a set of rules that set off the "cheese detector"...that give a good indication that the gentleman's agreement is about to crawl into the corner and die. If you like High-OP campaigns; if you want triple-digit damage, rocket tag, and immunity roulette in your campaigns, then by all means ignore this whole thread as a disordered rant.

[Telonius]

Rule 1: If another source makes an existing option WAY better then it is without it, chances are that combination was never intended, anticipated, or tested.

Possibly true ... but it doesn't necessarily follow that the result is cheesy or overpowered. If the baseline power of what's being changed is low enough, then the other source might be making an appropriate change. (Basically, they got it right, either deliberately or by accident).

To take one of your examples, Binder and the Hellfire Warlock. Warlock is in no way an overpowered, cheesy class. Its damage is on the low side. Hellfire arguably brings it up to what it should have been to begin with. A Warlock who dips Binder is still making a fairly major sacrifice - one of only three Dark Invocations he'll ever know - in order to do the amount of damage he should have gotten to begin with.

[Kazyan]

EDIT: You probably don't want collaborative input, so sorry if this disrupts your idea, but I'll leave this here anyway because it might be helpful.

Possible rule 4?: If an ability appears to have an oversight about what it includes or excludes, then it probably is an oversight after all.

Base: A Wu Jen eventually gains access to Body Outside Body, a spell that allows the caster to create spell-devoid copies of themselves temporarily.

Intent: The Wu Jen with Weapon Focus (Quarterstaff) can hit things by proxy, now. You get to play with your iterative attack and give the Fighter some backup, or even help out with skills and such. You just can't tell your extra bodies to cast spells, because that would multiply your firepower.

Reality: Psionics aren't spells. Using the Cerebremancer Prestige Class, a Wu Jen will be behind in spells, but when they get Body Outside Body, they can multiply their firepower anyway because psionics are not banned.

Analysis: A character that can use multiples of their powers on their turn will temporarily make the single-classed Psions or Wu Jens feel like a drop in the bucket. You only get one (or two) Energy Rays per turn because that's how it's balances. Plus, if the original body spends no power points, they've multiplied their psionic resources for the cost of one spell slot. This breaks the CR system on account of gaining virtual resources. What the designers probably meant to say was that you cannot use any kind of magic, but since it's very easy to equate spellcasting with magic and this is a high-level spell, they probably made a wording mistake.


Base: Polymorph is a spell that ahahaha you know what Polymorph does; next part.

Intent: Need to slip out of your prison cell? You're a cat! Need to smash something in combat? Ogre time! Polymorph has a wide-spanning inclusion of all sorts of monsters, so that every wizard can be their favorite for a while, and the HD cap puts a limit on being overpowering.

Reality: Need to smash something in combat? X-headed cryohydra and win. Pretty much instantly.

Analysis: A hydra is categorically better than everything except perhaps a roper in battle, because it is designed as a big dumb brute with a unique mechanic on how to actually fight it. (Playing the creature intelligently, well, you know what happens.) The monster you transform into is supposed to work a lot like a lower-level version of the Fighter, perhaps with flight or burrowing or something. This difference is an oversight. It also makes experimenting with other forms useless, ruining the fun of the spell.

[Flickerdart]

Pounce? Cheese? Melee needs pounce to function. It's not that Pounce is cheesy, it's that everything up until Pounce was crap. Your rules assume that WotC never managed to learn from, and attempt to correct, their mistakes, which is frankly not giving them enough credit.

[Oscredwin]

What needs to be done (by someone with more system mastery than me), is to build a tier system with levels of cheese (or with levels of optimization). I see people on this forum saying "if you're DM is ok with [X] than you might want to try out [Y]" because they are at the same level of cheese.

[deuxhero]

Snip

Or Wu Jen Jade Phoenix Mage. Less questionable and Transcend Mortality + Emerald Immolation.

[Deophaun]

Pounce? Cheese? Melee needs pounce to function. It's not that Pounce is cheesy, it's that everything up until Pounce was crap. Your rules assume that WotC never managed to learn from, and attempt to correct, their mistakes, which is frankly not giving them enough credit.
I'd have to agree with this. For some classes, as long as you're not doing an infinite damage loop, there's almost nothing that's "cheese" in the sense of game breaking.

Now, it might be cheese in these sense that it flies in the face of campaign logic or setting aesthetics, but that's another issue, preferably worked out by the DM and the player to accommodate both sides.

[Urpriest]

I think calling the subject of this thread Cheese is a misnomer. While it is a decent metric of designer intent, designer intent isn't terribly relevant. D&D 3.5 is long out of print. Anyone playing it now is either very experienced or was introduced by someone very experienced. The game exists how it is played, and the most interesting way to play it is the optimized Tier 3 paradigm.

[Andorax]

To Telonius and Flickerdart, I have to honestly say that you've proven out my point quite effectively.


Telonius, is the Warlock underpowered under the currently-accepted set of assumptions, or is it underpowered compared to, say, the iconics of Enemies and Allies? You are accustomed to a risen power level that, by default, the Warlock can't keep up with...and then are using the Warlock's supposed underpowered nature to justify an unintended combination "in the name of balance".



Flickerdart, likewise. If pounce was 'necessary' for melee to function, you'd think that the vast majority of melee in the whole of published D&D would have it. Conversely, I've seen VERY few examples of pouncers in print. Again, I believe that your expectations have been modified by power shifting.

There's nothing wrong with the power level you're accustomed to where pouncing full attacks are a necessary shift...but recognize that this isn't where the baseline is at, and that you're hanging out in an area well above that baseline as a conscious choice.



Kazyan, deuxhero, there's countless many other examples, but please do feel free to discuss particulars you find.




Deophaun, I'm vaguely curious about your statement:


For some classes, as long as you're not doing an infinite damage loop, there's almost nothing that's "cheese" in the sense of game breaking.

When you play in campaigns that get up over level 15, does the DM have, in his notes, monster entries that read:

AC 70, hp irrelevant?

Damage capacity doesn't have to be infinite to be cheese. 15th level characters who can dish out hundreds of hps of damage in a single uberpounce may well be a ton of fun for some groups, but they're certainly not how the designers envisioned the game to be played at such levels, else we wouldn't be seeing CR 18 Nightcrawlers with "only" 212 hps. It's presumed that this is a relevant, encounter-appropriate amount of health.



UrPriest:


and the most interesting way to play it is the optimized Tier 3 paradigm.

That part, right there, is your table's judgement call, based on your playstyle and perceived norm of optimization.

[Kazyan]

Or Wu Jen Jade Phoenix Mage. Less questionable and Transcend Mortality + Emerald Immolation.

Jade Pheonix Mage is closer to what Body Outside Body was meant for, though it unquestionably exceeds the expections due to what actually happens when you allow the Book of Nine Arguments.

Also, away from books at the moment, but I'll follow up in an hour or so about Emerald Immolation.

[Urpriest]

UrPriest:



That part, right there, is your table's judgement call, based on your playstyle and perceived norm of optimization.

Nope. It's the forum's judgement call. The rulebooks are most often used in theoretical excercises and online discussions, not in play. Those aspects which provide the most interest to those who use the rulebooks are rather straightforwardly those aspects of the game as it is played that are most interesting, otherwise they wouldn't garner this sort of interest.

Besides, I think you're ignoring one of the basic points of how this works, namely that most people in this discussion don't just think of the way they play as their own opinion, they think it's most fun for objective reasons. People who insist on low-op when they have the option to optimize more do so because they believe it enhances roleplaying. If it doesn't, then their arguments are false. Similarly, high-op people often believe that everyone will be more engaged and have more fun when their character has interesting options in combat and when they understand how to leverage those options. It's much like the argument that chess is much more fun when you know more than just how to move the pieces. Neither group would agree with your argument that it's purely a matter of personal opinion, and to counter their points you need to provide arguments of your own.

[Glimbur]

It's too much work for me to do, but one could consider running these by-the-designer characters against monsters based on the CR system and seeing how they do. This does have the problem of relying on the CR system being accurate (it's not), but it could show in broad terms whether the sample parties wipe the floor with monsters they should be able to beat, or if they are destroyed by encounters they should be able to win.

[Deophaun]

When you play in campaigns that get up over level 15, does the DM have, in his notes, monster entries that read:

AC 70, hp irrelevant?
If there's a caster in the party, they might as well.


Damage capacity doesn't have to be infinite to be cheese. 15th level characters who can dish out hundreds of hps of damage in a single uberpounce may well be a ton of fun for some groups, but they're certainly not how the designers envisioned the game to be played at such levels, else we wouldn't be seeing CR 18 Nightcrawlers with "only" 212 hps.
You're right. It was assumed at those levels the wizard would handle it.

Fact is, for a lot of monsters, HP is irrelevant. Use the right spell, they die. You get to them, they die. It's the getting to them without dying yourself that's the challenge.

As for pounce not being intended for most melee characters, you're really going to have to explain that one. After all, when WotC remade the Fighter and the Barbarian with the Warblade, as well as the rogue and monk with the Swordsage, they made pounce trivial to get. You could effectively do it at level 3 with sudden leap, or formally at level 5. You could make an argument that the Paladin wasn't supposed to have it, as the Crusader didn't have access within his class. But, anyone can grab Martial Study. Besides, the Crusader does have strikes which deal that kind of damage anyway.

Sure, when the game was first released, they didn't envision pounce being as necessary as it was. Of course, when the game was first released, they thought casting spells while wearing light or medium armor was broken. They eventually learned, though.

[deuxhero]

Also, away from books at the moment, but I'll follow up in an hour or so about Emerald Immolation.

It's basically combing "Effectively invincible, but die in rounds/CL" with "Die and respawn at full HP".

Bonus points if you can do a way to persist TM within the build (extend is done by rod).

[eggs]

I don't see why the way the designers played matters. They don't have a better grasp on the system than many players nowadays. Limiting gameplay based on the imagined intents of those writers just seems like a thinly-masked way of telling players "Do what I want you to, or go home."

The parameters are silly anyway.
Take the Wild Monk variant in Dragon. It gives the Monk the Druid's Wild Shape in exchange for some of the Monk's class features that are, well, Monk class features. The result is drastically more powerful than the default Monk, so by these parameters, it should be considered banworthy on sight.

But comparing the Wild Monk to the Druid, the Monk is still dramatically weaker. It doesn't even have spells. Or an animal companion. And it runs off the same basic framework (d8 HD/.75 BA/4+Int skills). To claim the is "broken" or "cheese" while the Druid class is not is to claim that the Monk's comparative +6 on Reflex saves is more powerful than the Druid's spellcasting and animal companion, combined.

So basically, I don't think this "Cheese Detector" is worth anyone's time. Looking at a completed character's capacities, and comparing them to the capacities you want from characters in your game is still a more efficient and less abusable option.

[Kazyan]

It's basically combing "Effectively invincible, but die in rounds/CL" with "Die and respawn at full HP".

Bonus points if you can do a way to persist TM within the build (extend is done by rod).

Ohhhh. Yep, I knew about "You become awesome for a while and then die, no save, no immunity" because of a Dirty Trick where some ability that lets you use a personal defensive buff on anyone else is used to poke whatever you want dead with Transcend Mortality, and then you run away.

It seems like a lot of optimization tricks are based on Rule 1. I mean, there's the Iaijustsu Quickrazor trick, Aptitude Lightning Maces, everything about Ubercharging, etc.

[ThiagoMartell]

Your Hellfire Warlock example is flawed.

Each time you use hellfire, you suffer the Con damage. You can use hellfire to:

Deal bonus damage with your eldritch blast (Hellfire Blast)
Counter-attack someone who attacked you with a hellfire blast (Hellfire Shield)


Potentially, a level 12 hellfire warlock can use hellfire three times a round. Quickened Eldritch Blast, Eldritch Blast, Hellfire Shield. That costs 3 points of Constitution.
If you have Naberius bound, you take -2 to your Fort save and you lose 24 hit points.
If you don't have Naberius bound, you take 2 to your Fort save and you lose 24 hit points.

Naberius just helps you deal with hellfire damage in a manner the class itself acknowledged as possible (healing ability damage).

You even claim a wand of restoration is acceptable because it 'costs something', but Naberius also costs something - it costs a level. A Hellfire Warlock with a Binder dip is one whole level behind, which might be difference between greater/dark invocations. Make me choose between chilling tentacles and reliable hellfire and I'll choose chilling tentacles every time.

Your post comes up as 'you're not supposed to optimize', while the designers themselves have stated the system is meant to be optimized.

[ericgrau]

I like this approach. Rather than 1000 page debates about what's fair and/or hundreds of hours of development, the starting point should be the existing material as intended. After all they put more hours into it than I spend on a full time job. Thus step 1 should be to remove the loopholes, then if you want to make houserules after that then fine.

Most of the common cheese are abilities not used as intended. Shocktrooper as commonly used isn't even a feat, it's 1/3 of a feat and was supposed to be very minor. Shivering touch misses out on the "non-stacking penalty not less than 1" errata that other ability score reducing spells got. The orb spells were designed as a prequel to 4e to provide a damaging effect and a status effect at the same time (there is an audio recording by the designers to confirm); but no one ever talks about the status effect aspect of them. Even in core the cheese often involves infinite loop tricks and liberal interpretations of what's reasonable (gate spell has no gp fee for minor services such as those taking less than 1 round / caster level => "do anything extreme for me as long as it doesn't take more than 17 rounds").

I don't think ability tax is ever the answer regardless of what you think is balanced. Change the system not the individual abilities if you think there's a system problem. Ability tax limits options by forcing people to select the "fix" to keep up. That should never be the criteria for whether or not to keep an ability.

I disagree with the OP on one thing though: Using abilities well but as intended. That kind of optimization is intended. Right on the WotC website there are all kinds of tips on doing exactly that. It's fine if a sorcerer picks up glitterdust. The spell is there, it doesn't have a different intended purpose, so use it. What I think causes the most trouble for those abilities is the lack of system understanding not too much system understanding. If you know the blindness/invisibility/darkness rules then you should know 99% of the time a DC 20 listen check reduces glitterdust into a 50% miss chance. With a retry every round. Now the spell might still be useful, but it's only half as good as many people think it is. If that were a damage spell halving/doubling would make a difference of up to 4 levels. In general trouble often comes when the DM doesn't know how to handle some ability.

[deuxhero]

^^How does Eldritch Glaive work with Hellfire? Does it take 2 points of con or one?

[Water_Bear]

As others have said playing 3.5 as the designers intended is seriously limiting, negating dozens of legitimate builds for every piece of cheese extracted. Sometimes intent is important, like to puzzle out a poorly written description, but limiting your builds to the notoriously lame pre-generated NPCs' level is a step too far in my opinion.

Is it that hard to judge cheese on a case-by-case basis? Every DM and Player has their own idea of what optimization is acceptable, from Focused Lexicon Truenamers to Spell-to-Power Erudites, and there isn't any one "right" answer. You don't need a "Cheese Detector," just talk to your group and feel out what they are comfortable with.

[Slipperychicken]

So basically, I don't think this "Cheese Detector" is worth anyone's time. Looking at a completed character's capacities, and comparing them to the capacities you want from characters in your game is still a more efficient and less abusable option.

This. Some groups play with heavily-optimized usually T1-T2 characters and tactics, some try to stick to T3, some groups play around T4-T5, and some groups have massive power disparity. They all can have a great time, and all their playstyles are valid.


The best "cheese detector" out there is the judgement, honesty, and self-control of skilled GMs and players. You learn, from experience, what is and is not acceptable at your table. Designer intent is completely irrelevant to a group's fun. Some parts of my group enjoy finding exploitable holes in the rules. Designer intent? Far from it. Fun? Absolutely. Everyone's group is different, and has different ideas of balance.

[Telonius]

Telonius, is the Warlock underpowered under the currently-accepted set of assumptions, or is it underpowered compared to, say, the iconics of Enemies and Allies? You are accustomed to a risen power level that, by default, the Warlock can't keep up with...and then are using the Warlock's supposed underpowered nature to justify an unintended combination "in the name of balance".


Underpowered compared to the iconics of Enemies and Allies. Take a standard Level 20 warlock. He's doing 9d6 (or 31.5 average) damage per round. He can occasionally get more than that if he has some Blast Shape invocations, or goes Glaivelock (which would probably be cheesy in your system). Compare that with Gartha the Red, level 12 Sorcerer (E&A p.30). Using a third-level spell (Fireball) she gets 10d6 damage. Granted, she can only sling 7 of those every day. But she also has a bunch of fairly strong utility spells (polymorph self, web, haste, invisibility, wall of iron, wall of fire, ray of enfeeblement). If she pulls out the big guns, she gets Chain Lightning at 12d6.

Granted, she doesn't get that kind of thing on all the time, every round. But this is a level 12 Sorcerer, regularly getting more damage on a per-round basis than a level 20 Warlock.

[Zarrgon]

I agree with you Andorax. The designers are more from the ''lets get together and play D&D for a couple hours'' type. As of course the designers are adults that see the game as something you do for a couple hours on the weekend. They are not the types sitting alone in a room somewhere with tons of D&D and spend endless hours coming up with builds, optimized things and rule loop holes.

In short you have the designer, Type 1, that ''just has fun'' playing D&D. They make a character in less then ten minutes just for fun. They assign things like feats and spells for more flavor and feel, and don't even much look at effects or game rules. This person would have fun with a druid that never wildshaped in a whole adventure, other then a short flight in bird from and only cast five spells.

And then you have type 2, the optimizer. This person is not making a role playing character, but a roll playing character. This person is making a ''build''. This person is only looking at effects and rules and how they interact. This person is only having fun buy the numbers, when they can take out a foe or do an action buy the power of their build.

Now they are both ways to play the game. One guy is having fun doing whatever, the other is only having fun playing a numbers game.

And the problem comes up that, the type 1 people are the ones writing the books. And the type 1 people can't even see the problem. Even if you would point out a flaw or problem, they would not understand and would not get it. After all 3.0 had tons of flaws, any that they could easily find online and many quite obvious. Yet when they had the chance to fix them, in 3.5, they only missed a couple dozen things. But why? It's simple, they could not only not see the flaws, but they could not even comprehend them. After all there is really no way to understand how they missed a thing like you could Gate in anything and get powerful creatures that can do anything. The kind of thing even a kid could spot in a couple seconds(as per the five year old used for the Evil Overlord Checklist).

[MukkTB]

This cheese detector fails to differentiate between tiers. Low teir characters deserve more leeway to 'cheese.' Take an ubercharger next to a generic wizard with only a little optimization. Its not exactly a broken party.

Cheese is a nebulous concept. Its easier to have a gentlemen's agreement in the group to play nice.

[demigodus]

I agree with you Andorax. The designers are more from the ''lets get together and play D&D for a couple hours'' type. As of course the designers are adults that see the game as something you do for a couple hours on the weekend. They are not the types sitting alone in a room somewhere with tons of D&D and spend endless hours coming up with builds, optimized things and rule loop holes.

You don't need hours sitting in alone in a dark room with tons of D&D, coming up with optimized things and rule loop holes to make characters that utterly overwhelm the "iconic" characters. You need around 10~20 minutes, a laptop, an internet connection, the d20srd, and a cursory knowledge of the spells and feats to throw together a cleric, druid, wizard, or sorcerer that does the job.

Preferably in a bright room with your fellow playmates also making their characters while you guys chat with each other, because making characters in silence is less fun than doing so while chatting.


In short you have the designer, Type 1, that ''just has fun'' playing D&D. They make a character in less then ten minutes just for fun. They assign things like feats and spells for more flavor and feel, and don't even much look at effects or game rules. This person would have fun with a druid that never wildshaped in a whole adventure, other then a short flight in bird from and only cast five spells.

And then you have type 2, the optimizer. This person is not making a role playing character, but a roll playing character. This person is making a ''build''. This person is only looking at effects and rules and how they interact. This person is only having fun buy the numbers, when they can take out a foe or do an action buy the power of their build.

And then you have type 1.5 that most people on this board fall into. They choose a flavor or feel, optimize a build around it, then "just have fun" playing the game with their friends.

Or, to be less subtle, most people who optimize can role play just as well as those who don't roll play so heavily. What you are declaring is called the Stormwind Fallacy, and it assumes the two are mutually exclusive.

For some of us, optimization actually helps with the role playing. After all, suspension of disbelief goes straight out the window if my "master thief" I'm playing needs DM fiat to survive trying to steal from an old man's hovel.


Now they are both ways to play the game. One guy is having fun doing whatever, the other is only having fun playing a numbers game.

And then the type 1.5 is having fun designing an interesting character, and then has fun playing the game. So double the fun ^^


And the problem comes up that, the type 1 people are the ones writing the books. And the type 1 people can't even see the problem. Even if you would point out a flaw or problem, they would not understand and would not get it. After all 3.0 had tons of flaws, any that they could easily find online and many quite obvious. Yet when they had the chance to fix them, in 3.5, they only missed a couple dozen things. But why? It's simple, they could not only not see the flaws, but they could not even comprehend them. After all there is really no way to understand how they missed a thing like you could Gate in anything and get powerful creatures that can do anything. The kind of thing even a kid could spot in a couple seconds(as per the five year old used for the Evil Overlord Checklist).

A lot the designers do actually talk about the concept of optimization and balance. So it isn't entirely that they don't understand the concept of optimizing and balancing. Some are just horrible at it. Others write the fluff, make sure it is amazing, realize they are almost at the deadly, quickly throw on some crunch, and hope the proof readers catch the issue. Sometimes the proofreaders don't have time to play test it. (I strongly believe that this is how the Truenamer happened. Awesome crunch. Class straight up requires horrid levels of optimization to play).

[OracleofSilence]

Granted, she doesn't get that kind of thing on all the time, every round. But this is a level 12 Sorcerer, regularly getting more damage on a per-round basis than a level 20 Warlock.

Yeah, seriously a Hellfire Warlock mitigating, but not completely overcoming its con damage is not really all that cheesy. If you want "cheesy", maybe take a look at this

Warlock 8/Binder 1/Hellfire warlock 3/Legacy Champion 8. Out of this (and it is no where near the best build for this) you get, let me see... Eldrtich blast 7d6+ (and this is the big part) 18d6 hellfire damage. stick this on eldritch glaive, and you have one ofthe best damage machines in the game. That can be called cheese. not killing yourself to do more appropriate damage in an EXTREMELY under-supported class (seriously, it gets almost now dedicated PrC's) is not cheese.

[Mato]

I made it half way through the post then I asked my self, what does any of this have to do with cheese in D&D?

I mean, you don't need to be a rocket scientist to know the power curve in D&D went up as the game progressed and the 300+ PrCs published showcases pure classing anything isn't of any real intent. So what does a list of some poorly made builds in a massively outdated book have to do with anything? And certainly, who cares about another system? I mean, CerOs, an off brand cheerios, doesn't prove adding honey is a bad idea (see cheerios' honey nut cereal). So why so far fetched examples here?

Anyway, here is a counter argument.

The vampire from Ravenloft is a human necromancer with ten class levels and no Int boosting gear yet still have 20 Int suggesting as a matter of fact he started with an 18 and put both level ups into it. Further while his default spell list is primarily built around debuffs and damage (some times both via fell drain) he has Scry, Save-or-Dies, and buffs for minions. His Spellbook it's self contains things like Solid Fog, Cloudkill, Glitterdust, and Web. This is an NPC designed to be killed and yet there isn't an outright bad choice (take turn undead for undead only reasons!) and in fact several optimized choices.

Logras from Expedition to the Ruins of Greyhawk is a human sorcerer and really, he has some optimization too. The lightning reflex feat seems out of place but he has 6~8 bodyguards and grease/web/haste and an Imp for a (improved) familiar making him also a CC themed caster that swarms opponents if his AoE damage spells would hit his allies, not the best pick but certainly a cut about the OP's examples. And again as a villain he should lose, so it can be said his 16 Cha is a reflected handicap to this, specially given his noted tactics is to PH/Charm Fighter types and even a remotely useful Save DC is devastating.

There is two moderately optimized examples. Their share point if anything is favoring low Save DCs, probably due to Save-or-Die effects tick players off more than anything else. These are Recent and Official examples drawn from Real Adventures, not totally off the wall examples from several years before the 3.5 update and I'm certainly not reaching into another game to scrap examples off the bottom of the barrel. A group should win against these moderately optimized villains, which obviously means you need to be better than them, not worse.

[Ashtagon]

Yeah, seriously a Hellfire Warlock mitigating, but not completely overcoming its con damage is not really all that cheesy. If you want "cheesy", maybe take a look at this

Warlock 8/Binder 1/Hellfire warlock 3/Legacy Champion 8. Out of this (and it is no where near the best build for this) you get, let me see... Eldrtich blast 7d6+ (and this is the big part) 18d6 hellfire damage. stick this on eldritch glaive, and you have one of the best damage machines in the game. That can be called cheese. not killing yourself to do more appropriate damage in an EXTREMELY under-supported class (seriously, it gets almost now dedicated PrC's) is not cheese.

This is yet another example of not knowing the rules.

First up, the legacy champion class feature says:


At each level except 1st and 7th, you gain class features and an increase in effective level as if you had also gained a level in a class to which you belonged before adding the prestige class level... ...If you had more than one class before becoming a legacy champion, you must decide to which class to add each level for the purpose of determining class abilities.

So you only get to add those six legacy champion "virtual levels" to one class (or more than one class, if you split them up between them).

Next, there's the "as if you had also gained a level" bit. Once you are level three in hellfire warlock, you can't gain a level in that class any more. There's level three, and that's all she wrote. There are no rules anywhere that allow extrapolations beyond level three in that class. The only rules anywhere that allow extrapolated gaining of levels beyond what has been specifically written in the base description is in the Epic Level Handbook. And that a) requires you to be into epic levels, and b) only works for classes that have at least ten levels as written. The particular concept being written about here qualifies on neither count.

And no, you do not get to effectively be a warlock 14 and binder 7 with this either. The rules specifically say pick one class that you can gain levels in.

The game would work a lot better if everyone would just RTFM.

[LordBlades]

And then you have type 2, the optimizer. This person is not making a role playing character, but a roll playing character. This person is making a ''build''. This person is only looking at effects and rules and how they interact. This person is only having fun buy the numbers, when they can take out a foe or do an action buy the power of their build.


As others have said before: what on earth do your character's power and optimization levels have to do with how well you roleplay?

[JoshuaZ]

As others have said before: what on earth do your character's power and optimization levels have to do with how well you roleplay?

Strongly agree with this sentiment. The first time I ever played 3.5 I made a battlefield control wizard without having heard the term ever. Why? Because I was playing a smart wizard and a little examination showed that that was probably more effective than blasting everything.

A smart wizard is going to do just that. A wizard who chooses spells poorly is poor roleplaying.

Moreover, sometimes optimization is important for a character concept. A lot of the more interesting or complicated ideas require some clever optimization to work. For example, the fluff of the truenamer is really nice, but without any optimization at mid levels instead of being the guy who is able to rewrite reality by speaking the sourcecode of the universe, you are a guy who says funny things that occasionally have an impact.

It is possible to optimize without regard to role. But they don't need to conflict, and often optimization helps roleplaying.

[Craft (Cheese)]

If I may.... Who cares about designer intent?

[Wyntonian]

As others have said before: what on earth do your character's power and optimization levels have to do with how well you roleplay?

I'll have to echo this, just because it bears repeating.

In fact, I've found that the characters I've tried to optimize to some appropriate degree are also the ones I roleplay the best, simply because I've spent more time thinking about them, their backstory, how I fluff every cool thing they can do, what they're capable of.... pretty much all those things you need to know to be able to RP well.

That one cleric I threw together in like 10 minutes, with Dodge and Combat Casting? "Um... So... I think he prays? Maybe?"

[OracleofSilence]

So you only get to add those six legacy champion "virtual levels" to one class (or more than one class, if you split them up between them).

Next, there's the "as if you had also gained a level" bit. Once you are level three in hellfire warlock, you can't gain a level in that class any more. There's level three, and that's all she wrote. There are no rules anywhere that allow extrapolations beyond level three in that class. The only rules anywhere that allow extrapolated gaining of levels beyond what has been specifically written in the base description is in the Epic Level Handbook. And that a) requires you to be into epic levels, and b) only works for classes that have at least ten levels as written. The particular concept being written about here qualifies on neither count.

And no, you do not get to effectively be a warlock 14 and binder 7 with this either. The rules specifically say pick one class that you can gain levels in.

The game would work a lot better if everyone would just RTFM.

Uhhhh, no that is not what i am saying at all.

You advance Hellfire Warlock (I never said ANYTHING about advancing binder. it is only there for Naberius, and isn't needed at all if you read Strongheart Vest a certain (and reasonable) way). Remeber, it says AS IF you advance the class. The Hellfire warlock (in its text, and text trumps table), never stipulates that its abilities cap at three levels (relevant quote)


Hellfire Blast (Sp): Whenever you use your eldritch
blast ability, you can change your eldritch blast into a hell fi re
blast. A hellfire blast deals your normal eldritch blast damage
plus an extra 2d6 points of damage per class level. If your
blast hits multiple targets (for example, the eldritch chain or
eldritch cone blast shape invocations), each target takes the
extra damage. This damage is not fire damage. Hellfi re burns
hotter than any normal fi re, as described in the sidebar on
page 119.
Each time you use this ability, you take 1 point of Constitution
damage. Because the diabolical forces behind the power
of hellfi re demand part of your essence in exchange for this
granted power, if you do not have a Constitution score or are
somehow immune to Constitution damage, you cannot use
this ability.

Now, you are advancing the class
as if you are advancing a level. Therefore, you get a boost to hellfire

As for invocations, and regular blast advancement...

The specific class features you gain include spells
per day (and spells known, if applicable), improved
chance of turning or destroying undead, metamagic,or item creation feats, bonus feats, monk special abilities,
sneak attack progressions, and so on, depending
on the class. You do not, however, gain the benefit of
your previous class’s Hit Dice, attack progression,
skill points, or saving throws.


This include the advancement of your Warlock level for invocations and eldritch blast because...


Invoking: At each level, you gain new invocations known,
increased damage with eldritch blast, and an increase in
invoker level as if you had also gained a level in the warlock
class. You do not, however, gain any other benefi t a character
of that class would have gained.

This happens to be something Hellfire Warlocks get.

As for this...


And that a) requires you to be into epic levels, and b) only works for classes that have at least ten levels as written. The particular concept being written about here qualifies on neither count.

You are NOT literally gaining levels. Youare gaining abilities as if your class advacned in levels. This includes boosting hellfire and increasing invoking. Also, please find the line in Legacy Champion that states it CANNOT increase your effective class level above its maximum... Cause i just read it, and there really isn't one.


At each level except 1st and 7th,
you gain class features and an increase in effective
level as if you had also gained a level in a class to which
you belonged before adding the prestige class level.

All it says is this.

So i think i just RTFM, and it confirmed me.

[Ashtagon]

I highlighted the "only adds to one class" bit because some people try cheesing it out even further than you apparently do by adding those virtual levels to every class.

You can't gain a level (even a virtual level) in a class when that level you are trying to gain does not actually exist.

Remember, it's "as if you gain a level" not "as if the class has more levels than it actually has" or "extrapolate in a 'logical' fashion".

You can't gain a level, because there are no more levels to gain. You can't gain a virtual level because there are no more levels in that class that haven't already been taken.

I know you aren't literally gaining levels. That's why I call them virtual levels (itself strictly speaking a misnomer, but useful shorthand to keep posts from getting incredibly verbose).

Anyway, I'm not here to tell you you're having badwrongfun (not even to imply that). I just want interesting discussions. Peace out.

[TypoNinja]

What needs to be done (by someone with more system mastery than me), is to build a tier system with levels of cheese (or with levels of optimization). I see people on this forum saying "if you're DM is ok with [X] than you might want to try out [Y]" because they are at the same level of cheese.

This is a fantastic idea, I've asked these boards for suggestions a few times, and everything was very effective, but almost all of it I'd be scared to use in actual gameplay. I usually end up taking a watered down version of whatever the theme was.

[ThiagoMartell]

If I may.... Who cares about designer intent?

Many people. It's fine if you don't care about it, but it's not fine to dismiss the opinion of those who do care about it.

[Righteous Doggy]

Many people. It's fine if you don't care about it, but it's not fine to dismiss the opinion of those who do care about it.

And it doesn't have much to do with balance. We can learn why they made their choices, but by RAW the game is not totally balanced and has plenty of cheese to go around... Its not their opinion we're dismissing anyway if its someone elses they're using?(crazy logic I know)

Personally I can't agree with enough on the thread to talk :smalltongue:

[jaybird]

Warlock 8/Binder 1/Hellfire warlock 3/Legacy Champion 8. Out of this (and it is no where near the best build for this) you get, let me see... Eldrtich blast 7d6+ (and this is the big part) 18d6 hellfire damage. stick this on eldritch glaive, and you have one ofthe best damage machines in the game. That can be called cheese. not killing yourself to do more appropriate damage in an EXTREMELY under-supported class (seriously, it gets almost now dedicated PrC's) is not cheese.

25d6 averages out to 87.5. If that's what you're doing at level 20...that really isn't overpowered. Even at level 10 (Wizard 5/War Mage 5) you can do 92.5 damage with a level 4 Fireball...Fiery Spell (+1/dice), Empower Spell, Arcane Thesis (Fireball), and the War Mage's ability (+3/dice at War Mage 5). Sure, it's limited shots per day, ref half, and fire damage...but it's also over a 20' radius and 10 levels lower.

[Andorax]

If I may.... Who cares about designer intent?

What I'm trying to get at here, and maybe not fully conveying, is not thatdesigner intent is some kind of blessed standard or "better" way to play.

It is reasonably indicative of a "general power level" at which the game can be played...one which, since the designers designed it, the game itself is logically designed and intended to support.

And yet, there are some (not all) who regularly say that if you're playing the game at the designer level, you're doing it wrong, and hopelessly ineffective.

There's room for both styles. They're both legitimate (and perhaps "cheese" is a poorly chosen term on my part, as it implies high-op is bad).


What the rules are trying to get at is a basis, a starting point, for determining if what you're doing is creeping from low-OP to high-OP...it's a way to keep a group's expectations level and the participants honest with themselves and each other. Heck, a group that's into high-OP can use them as guidelines for what TO do...call it "chasing the cheese" if you like.

[Fineous Orlon]

25d6 averages out to 87.5. If that's what you're doing at level 20...that really isn't overpowered. Even at level 10 (Wizard 5/War Mage 5) you can do 92.5 damage with a level 4 Fireball...Fiery Spell (+1/dice), Empower Spell, Arcane Thesis (Fireball), and the War Mage's ability (+3/dice at War Mage 5). Sure, it's limited shots per day, ref half, and fire damage...but it's also over a 20' radius and 10 levels lower.

What is this War Mage you speak of, with the ability of +3 damage per die, and where can I find it 3.5?

[erikun]

The problem I see is that legitimately powerful options are presented as equal to legitimately poor options. You've mentioned Natural Spell-Druids, but failed to account that the basic Druid shown in the PHB (Hide Armor + Shield, Scimitar, wolf companion) is generally going to outshine most others in melee combat.

What about the person who wants to play a summoner? A transmuter? A Cleric with the War/Strength domains, complete with all those broken spells you've recommended against? The impression you're giving is that people who play Wizards as something other than fireball-tossers are somehow intentionally choosing overpowered options that the designers never intended, but how is Summon Monster + Augment Summoning any less intended than Fireball + Spell Focus [Evocation]?

Indeed, part of the complaint about psionics and Tome of Battle are no doubt the result of creating classes that are less-incompetent than their core counterparts.

[Urpriest]

What I'm trying to get at here, and maybe not fully conveying, is not thatdesigner intent is some kind of blessed standard or "better" way to play.

It is reasonably indicative of a "general power level" at which the game can be played...one which, since the designers designed it, the game itself is logically designed and intended to support.

Ok, I can actually get behind some of this. As someone mentioned earlier, it would be interesting to think about "tiers" of optimization. And this would be the lowest (or second lowest, if the lowest is not understanding the rules at all) of the tiers. If you don't mind me summarizing your points, the lowest Tier seems to be described by:
Early-3.5 Designer Playstyle Tier:
1. Don't get rid of the risks inherent in doing something unless the rule explicitly mentions that something. (including that last bit so your Rule 1 doesn't rule out things like Improved Trip or Improved Unarmed Strike.)
2. No no-brainer options.
3. Use one thing to do one thing.
There are a few things one can add, but this seems a good starting point.

We can characterize a few other tiers, though. Here are some thoughts:

Rules by Late-3.5 Consistency, or Rules-As-Applied:
My favored view. Cheese is characterized as interpreting rules in a way that is inconsistent with the way other rules work. Essentially, look at the trends of errata and later publications and try to estimate how the game would have evolved if the designers had continued on the same track and had been paid to do errata more thoroughly. Under this view, certain things are sacred and should not be capable of being messed with because that's how the rules treat them (HD, ML), while other things (damage scales, spell levels, duplicating others' roles) should be comparatively flexible. Some late-game things that weren't technically errata should be interpreted as errata (Psionic vs. Magical Genesis), and some things that were inconsistently errataed should be made consistent (Magic Immunity on ELH monsters). Statted examples are relevant not on an individual basis but as a general guide for how the rules are consistently applied.

Strict RAW, or Textual Analysis:
Use dictionary definitions and glossary entries. Examples, FAQ, and the like should be scrupulously avoided, only employed if they phrase particularly well an argument that can be made in other terms. The Curmudgeon view essentially. Note that while I place this after Rules-As-Applied in this post, it's not necessarily more permissive. Both have exploits the other lacks.

Wishful Thinking and Post-Singularity Cheese:
Wishful thinking will always be a contentious moniker, but things like double-advancement from Ultimate Magus and gaining HD from Greater Metamorphosis should qualify. Using the Dragon type to take high level substitution levels without taking the lower ones is another example. Post-Singularity Cheese is a different arena, but has similar results, and is defined as rules interpretations which radically change the nature of the way the game progresses. "Jacob's Ladder" tricks that give low level characters high level spells, Ice Assassin abuse, and Phaerimms are all potential examples of this.

[Sudain]

Andorax

the overall expectations and underlying assumptions that seem to be in place in the majority of discussions here are quite a bit different from how the game, modules, CR system, and so forth were designed.

YES!!!


eggs

I don't see why the way the designers played matters. They don't have a better grasp on the system than many players nowadays. Limiting gameplay based on the imagined intents of those writers just seems like a thinly-masked way of telling players "Do what I want you to, or go home."

Try designing a game system. I'm sure you'll find it a refreshing change of pace.

[ThiagoMartell]

And it doesn't have much to do with balance. We can learn why they made their choices, but by RAW the game is not totally balanced and has plenty of cheese to go around... Its not their opinion we're dismissing anyway if its someone elses they're using?(crazy logic I know)

I agree completely. I just disagree with "no one cares about designer intent".

[Urpriest]

One thing to consider is that the CR system likely has a implicit optimization assumptions that may differ from those of the designers' intent. For example, from the mid levels onward flying monsters are generally about as strong as nonflying monsters, which suggests that the CR system assumes that characters will either have viable ranged options or be pure melee. Similarly, higher level monsters that swing around various sorts of death effects imply that the appropriate way to fight them is with broad spectrum immunities.

[jaybird]

What is this War Mage you speak of, with the ability of +3 damage per die, and where can I find it 3.5?

Age of Mortals, 5 level prestige class, 5/5 casting. Also a minor Cha-based passive buff aura and 2 free metamagic feats, but you need (IIRC) Combat Casting and Eschew Materials to get in, so consider it a 0-feat balance. My favourite blasting PrC.

EDIT: Possibly 3/4 BAB and light armour casting as well?

[Tyndmyr]

With that in mind, I'd invite you to consider a few things:

A) It is often said that D&D can be played many ways, that there is room for various different styles, and that there isn't a lot of room for (or tolerance of) telling someone "you're doing it wrong".

Meh. There are multiple ways to do it right. However, there ARE ways to do it wrong.

If you doubt this, google up Lanky's stories, and you'll be back to agree shortly.


B) With that said, we can make some assumptions about how the designers/authors/creators are presuming that the game would normally be played. These assumptions come from their own comments and suggestions, but they also come from what, to me, are pretty obvious sources. Villains, NPCs, and often heroes (see pre-generated characters in some adventures) are not even remotely optimized by the standards commonly tossed around here.

Here's the prob. There were a lot of creators, and their assumptions are not all the same.


There's an old 3.0 accessory entitled Enemies and Allies which has in it, among other things, Appendix 2: Iconic Charcters. The actual characters they've used as "the example monk" "the example rogue" etc...Lidda, Redgar, that lot. Presented as 5th, 10th, and 15th level characters. Looking them over, there's a lot of things I'm seeing.

Alhandra the Paladin has Weapon Focus (longsword)
Devis the Bard, at 5th level, still carries mundane torches around.
Hennet the Sorcerer doesn't know color spray OR grease OR glitterdust
Jozan the Cleric doesn't seem to be memorizing any of the core CODZilla spells, and has more item creation feats than metamagics.

For 3.0, this isn't actually that bad. Item creation feats are pretty awesome...mundane torches are a pretty sound item to carry, even after the party has other light sources. I've checked many a pit's depth by tossing a lit torch into it. Very cheap. Sorcs have limited spells known. Also, didn't he have haste, which in 3.0 was broken as hell?


Fast forward...a lot...to when Pathfinder was the new adventure path, not an actual alternate 3.X ruleset. I'm looking at the Rise of the Runelords adventure 4, Fortress of the Stone Giants. There, on pages 92 and 93 are...pregenerated characters at 10th level.

Yeah, but rise of the runelords was terrible. I crushed that campaign as a single classed barbarian, getting something like half the kills of a party of NINE. That said, there were folks in there with builds like sorc 1/wiz 1/bard 1. I consider their survival to be an indicator of problems, not of designer success.


Seoni the Sorcerer ALSO doesn't have color spray, grease or glitterdust. She does have 7 direct damage/attack spells AND Greater Spell Focus (Evocation).

Friggin wierd, considering the hp inflation in PF. Again, designer fail is the obvious answer.


Kyra the Cleric (yes, they're all 10th level straight-up characters)[quote]

Single classing is pretty viable in PF. Not really important.

[quote]Again, this isn't truly a source with the full range of everything 3.X published available to it...being Paizo-manufactured, it is bound by SRD+Pathfinder stuff. But to me, it is once again indicative of the kind of game that Wolfgang Baur thought you'd be playing...that these four fatally low-OP characters are genuinely expected to stand a chance in this adventure.

Then, Wolfgang Baur had no idea what he was doing. Because, frankly, feedback was given on problems, and his assumptions for balance are...frankly, odd. Even playing a pretty normal class, with straight levels and without notable splatbook diving, the adventure was kind of a sleepwalk. Nobody died, and risk of it was fairly low, even the sessions where half the people didn't show up.

Conclusion: Adventure was poorly balanced, and offered comparatively little challenge. Assumptions don't match up to either optimized OR standard play.


I'd even go so far as to say the Tier system itself is a symptom of this mentality...that nobody "breaks" the game if they're playing as it was originally intended and expected.

Roll up a Tainted Scholar. A base casting class and tainted scholar, no combos. Hand it to your most un-power-gamey player. Watch the results.

Rinse and repeat with Illithid Savant.

Now, just to mix things up, hand your best player a CW Samurai or the like. Watch the game.


Rule 1: If another source makes an existing option WAY better then it is without it, chances are that combination was never intended, anticipated, or tested.

Combination? Sometimes options are just flat out better, without combinations being involved. Compare Toughness vs Improved Toughness. The latter is way better, and almost certainly was aware of the former.


Rule 2: If a given feat, ACF, or other choice is inherently and inevitably better such that it might as well be a rewritten class feature, chances are it's overpowered.

That sounds pretty subjective. The difference between class specific feat and class feature is...well, pretty arbitrary. Some of each are good and bad.


Rule 3: Multiple ways to accomplish the same effect are not intended to be collected, surfed and stacked.

Even the example chars occasionally add additional bonuses to the same things.

And why would they bother to write explicit stacking rules if the intent was NOT stacking?


Intent: On its own, Arcane Thesis isn't bad...a signature spell the character's particularly good at. On its own, the Incantatrix isn't bad...become generally better at metamagic as a capstone. Easy Metamagic, and so forth...they're not unreasonable.

Reality: Park all of the meta-reducers, metamagic multipliers, and "bonus" metamagics that can provide a negative level result together, and you can create a character that drops bags of dice with 2nd level spell slots.

Analysis: 15th level arcane casters are expected to do 30d6 damage...with their 6th level disintegrates! Chances are, if a 15th level character can beat this damage more reliably and use a spell slot far lower to do it...then something's not right here.

You don't need both of these. My level 7 caster with arcane thesis pumps out 20d6 orbs now. This is using the correct Arcane Thesis metamagic...there is a single CL boost from spellgifted, but that's not at all unusual, nor is it stacking many boosts. It's using one feat exactly as intended.


Base: Weapon Envy. Goliaths have powerful build. Monkey Grip lets you use an oversized weapon, and Wield Oversized Weapon lets you use a greatly oversized weapon. Heavy weapons "count" as bigger, and there are spells and powers to make you bigger in reality.

Intent: Multiple means by which a warrior can smack things with a somewhat-bigger-than-normal weapon.

Reality: 14' tall Goliaths hitting things with swords three times as long as they are tall...swords that if the DM is paying attention won't fit around most dungeon corridors.

Analysis: Does it realistically make sense to stack the bigger weapon abilities on top of one another to absurd levels? It's LEGAL, but that's not the point...most of what I'm talking about here is legal. The question is, are you blinding yourself to the absurdity of what you're doing for the sake of another slice of oh-so-tasty cheese?

Well...as soon as your cheese detector goes off on "monkey grip", something's gone terribly amiss.

[Grim Reader]

What I'm trying to get at here, and maybe not fully conveying, is not thatdesigner intent is some kind of blessed standard or "better" way to play.

It is reasonably indicative of a "general power level" at which the game can be played...one which, since the designers designed it, the game itself is logically designed and intended to support.

I think you are making a huge assumption here, that is not supported by any evidence. The game may be intended to to support this, but it is by no means logically designed to do so.

The game was designed with the Druid and Cleric as base classes, right alongside the Fighter and Monk. That is pretty heavy evidence that the game design does not logically support the playstyle the designers intended.

You see, there is a wrong way to play. And that is where you don't have fun, or where some people can have all the fun and other people just sit around and watch. And that is the playstyle the basic game supports.

I got to say, I think you hugely, hugely overestimate the designers understanding of how the game actually works.


And yet, there are some (not all) who regularly say that if you're playing the game at the designer level, you're doing it wrong, and hopelessly ineffective.

Not neccessarily you, but yes, someone will be. The guy who plays a fighter because he wants to be Clint Eastwood, or a monk because he wants to be Bruce Lee.

There's room for both styles. They're both legitimate (and perhaps "cheese" is a poorly chosen term on my part, as it implies high-op is bad).

What the rules are trying to get at is a basis, a starting point, for determining if what you're doing is creeping from low-OP to high-OP...it's a way to keep a group's expectations level and the participants honest with themselves and each other. Heck, a group that's into high-OP can use them as guidelines for what TO do...call it "chasing the cheese" if you like.

The problem is that that starting point is broken. Broken as in "Does not work as a game" Have you noticed how few threads there are here about optimizing Wizards or Druids compared to Rangers and Maguses and Summoners? Druids don't need optimizing.

90 % of all optimizing is patching the original game into something where everyone can play.

Your starting point is one where character classes vary far more in capability than the variety between a low and high-op Fighter or Monk. Their entire range falls short of Druid -Natural Spell.

I mean, you built a cheese detector that pings Pounce as cheese in a Fighter! The Druid is going to be out fightering him through Wildshape at higher levels, the Animal companion at low levels, and he is a full caster.

You're tagging Pounce as the Cheese there.

And the problem with this cheese detector is that you are not basing that on any consideration of how powerful Pounce is, nor how powerful the class gaining it is compared to its companions.

Instead you are basing it on wheter it fits the model of what the designers intent of what character should have was, which intent in itself is obviously broken.

I honestly believe that you cound use a brokeness detector that goes "If it apperas to fit the designer intent with the game it is probably broken weak or strong" and you'd be right more often. Still not functional, but closer.

[Andorax]

UrPriest, I think you're starting to get at where I'm going with this.



Tyndmyr, one correction to what you said...the first Pathfinder series (Rise of the Runelords) isn't 3.P, it's 3.5...it predates the Pathfinder system significantly. It wasn't until the fourth Pathfinder set of adventures (#19) that they wrote it for their own new ruleset.



The problem is that that starting point is broken. Broken as in "Does not work as a game" Have you noticed how few threads there are here about optimizing Wizards or Druids compared to Rangers and Maguses and Summoners? Druids don't need optimizing.

I just don't get this. I see it repeated numerous times, but I still just don't get it.

Would you care to explain to me how in the world I managed to actually have fun, with a group of other intelligent, capable adults (who have very little interest in reading forums about D&D and really only think about the game for a few hours each week when we're playing) actually managed to have fun for the last 15 years with a game that simply doesn't work?

I'm by far and away the alpha geek of our group, the only one who's on these forums...I only myself heard about the Tier system maybe 2 years ago at most. Somehow...we're all still having a grand time. How is that possible with a game so broken out of the door that it "doesn't work"?

[Rejusu]

It's a bit of a leap to assume that because the pre-generated characters are rubbish the game designers are working on the assumption that people actually play characters like that. I mean you honestly think the game designers are presuming that no Sorcerer will ever learn Colour spray? If they were why would they put that spell in there in the first place.

There are plenty of examples of terrible pre-genned characters in a lot of books, about the only real assumption you can make from them is that they're thrown together in very little time or with very little care, or even both. Heck the Ur-priest sample character doesn't even meet the prerequisites for being an Ur-priest, it's short a skill point I think.

Sure I think plenty of people play the game in ways the designers didn't expect and probably couldn't anticipate. But coming to a conclusion on how they presume the game was meant to be played from the sample characters is a pretty big stretch.

[Tyndmyr]

Tyndmyr, one correction to what you said...the first Pathfinder series (Rise of the Runelords) isn't 3.P, it's 3.5...it predates the Pathfinder system significantly. It wasn't until the fourth Pathfinder set of adventures (#19) that they wrote it for their own new ruleset.

Gotcha. Not really sure which version I played, then. It was played using pathfinder, and I wasn't GMing, so I just assumed that, like the books, the module was pathfinder based.

Still, I feel relatively secure in my conclusion that, among all the different involved designers, coming out with a single "designer intent" more detailed than "finish this book and get paid" is unlikely.


I just don't get this. I see it repeated numerous times, but I still just don't get it.

Would you care to explain to me how in the world I managed to actually have fun, with a group of other intelligent, capable adults (who have very little interest in reading forums about D&D and really only think about the game for a few hours each week when we're playing) actually managed to have fun for the last 15 years with a game that simply doesn't work?

I'm by far and away the alpha geek of our group, the only one who's on these forums...I only myself heard about the Tier system maybe 2 years ago at most. Somehow...we're all still having a grand time. How is that possible with a game so broken out of the door that it "doesn't work"?

Frankly, the internet overstates the importance of balance.

I am aware that some classes are better than others. It also frankly rarely matters. I'm currently running an incantatrix/foc spec conjurer in the same party as a warmage. This is not my first time running such a char...but the warmage is highly optimized, and we have synergistic chars(for instance, me slapping metamagics onto spells he casts utilizing his free metamagics from his class, onto a scroll via my Scribe Scroll). This means that we work together awesomely, tiers be damned.

Sure, the tier system and other resources are interesting, and useful, but you can have a perfectly grand game while giving balance the middle finger.

[LordBlades]

I just don't get this. I see it repeated numerous times, but I still just don't get it.

Would you care to explain to me how in the world I managed to actually have fun, with a group of other intelligent, capable adults (who have very little interest in reading forums about D&D and really only think about the game for a few hours each week when we're playing) actually managed to have fun for the last 15 years with a game that simply doesn't work?

I'm by far and away the alpha geek of our group, the only one who's on these forums...I only myself heard about the Tier system maybe 2 years ago at most. Somehow...we're all still having a grand time. How is that possible with a game so broken out of the door that it "doesn't work"?


If it works for a group doesn't mean it works for everyone. I've had a quite opposite experience. My first D&D group managed to break the game all by themselves, without any help or forums simply by taking stuff in the books for granted.

First campaign I played a cleric and was diligently healbotting like the book advises until our fighter missed a session. Being the single other melee, I had to play the frontliner, so I loaded my list with all the buffs I could find, and went to town. Went way better than any of us expected (I was pulling significantly higher numbers than our s&b fighter in both AC, attack and damage). Story arc ended that session, before we could actually debate whether I should keep healing the fighter or replace him, and we started a new campaign with new chars.

I went for a druid, was dominating most encounters(not too badly since I was a bit overwhelmed by the sheer amount of options), but since our group came from a competitive team games background (DoTA to be specific), a team member dominating is a reason for joy, not discontent. All hell broke loose when our summoning focused sorcerer took lesser planar binding for what it was, and started spamming outsiders all over the place. He didn't do it on purpose, just thought that since it was on his spell list at that level, it was entirely appropriate to take and use.

[eggs]

Try designing a game system. I'm sure you'll find it a refreshing change of pace.
I appreciate that it's hard to build a balanced yet varied wargame. But that doesn't mean the designers intended to make has more than a passing resemblance to the game they did make.



I climb. I recently acquired some quckdraws at a very low price from a company I'd never heard of. The carabiners were very light, and were stamped with labels attesting to a considerable strength. I was optimistic. The first time I used them sport climbing, I had a short fall that otherwise wouldn't be notable, except that its force bent one of the carabiner's gates in a way that a well-made gate really wouldn't bend.

I do not design carabiners for a living. I appreciate that there might be some interesting and difficult decisions for an engineer who designs a carabiner while balancing its weight, strength and usability. I believe I understand the designer's intentions when designing those carabiners - to build a usable, appealing and safe piece of climbing protection. But it doesn't matter what the designer intended - if used as they were intended to be, the carabiners would be a deathtrap; if repurposed to hold up a slackline, hammock, etc., they can still be useful bits of hardware.

In short, the designers' intentions and the realities of their product are very different things. Pretending they're not is a good way to be disappointed. A more practical solution is acknowledging the problems and assessing in concrete terms whether and how those products can be used.

D&D 3e was not intended to be imbalanced, but it is. That is well known and has been thoroughly discussed for more than a decade. Taking lengths to play as intended is not going to balance things. The Shadowcaster is still going to have fewer and weaker spells than the wizard. The Samurai and Swashbuckler are still going to be Fighters with crappy feat selections. The Monk is still going to struggle to match damage and control powers with summoned animals. Solving those problems means recognizing them and addressing them individually while working toward a single explicit goal.

[Water_Bear]

I'm by far and away the alpha geek of our group, the only one who's on these forums...I only myself heard about the Tier system maybe 2 years ago at most. Somehow...we're all still having a grand time. How is that possible with a game so broken out of the door that it "doesn't work"?

Some people get a little hyperbolic about the problems with 3.5, especially when it comes to balance and the degree of system mastery required to play. But that doesn't mean the problems don't exist.

D&D 3.5 is, in my opinion, a gorgeous system with a huge amount of potential. But it is very un-intuitive and it requires a lot of system mastery to effectively realize character concepts. This doesn't mean you can't have fun, but it is frustrating when your character fails to do what it is designed to do.

For example;
In one game I ran there was a Half-Elf Swashbucker/Rogue, a Catfolk CA Ninja, a Human Wizard, a Human Sorcerer, and a very poorly made Githzerai Urban Druid.

The Swashbuckler was frustrated because he was routinely overshadowed in combat by his pet dog*, the Ninja started to hate her character because she was frequently knocked unconscious, and the Druid eventually retired his character because he didn't feel like he was contributing. They had less fun because they couldn't be the kinds of characters they wanted to be; a lethal melee fighter, a deadly assassin, and a... whatever the Urban Druid was trying to be, I never figured that guy out.

The Wizard and the Sorcerer both played exactly the character concept they wanted. They never tried to overshadow the party and they weren't power-gamers; the wizard even deliberately weakened his build. But they had more fun because their classes allowed them to play the characters they wanted.

*It was some kind of HD-advanced Elven Hound, supposedly below his CR. I gave it to him originally because it fit the character, but eventually he ended up playing the dog...

Roleplaying is about, well, playing a role. A rule which helps you realize your character concept is generally a well made rule, and one which hinders it is usually broken. When it is difficult to make an idea like "Ninja" work within the rules, that is a serious problem because players expecting archetypal Ninjas will be disappointed and frustrated.

[Sudain]

I do not design carabiners for a living. I appreciate that there might be some interesting and difficult decisions for an engineer who designs a carabiner while balancing its weight, strength, usability, and cost. I believe I understand the designer's intentions when designing those carabiners - to build a usable, appealing and safe piece of climbing protection. But it doesn't matter what the designer intended - if used as they were intended to be, the carabiners would be a deathtrap; if repurposed to hold up a slackline, hammock, etc., they can still be useful bits of hardware.

Tweaked that for you. I agree with you on all points there; but it's important to note the cost as an otherwise great design may be deminished/faulty/rubish if too little money is allowed. Did that happen with 3.5? I don't know. But I'm guessing some aspect of "Complexity is the enemy of understandably" is, and taking time to understand/balance the game costs cash sadly.



In short, the designers' intentions and the realities of their product are very different things. Pretending they're not is a good way to be disappointed. A more practical solution is acknowledging the problems and assessing in concrete terms whether and how those products can be used.
Yup, I agree with you.



D&D 3e was not intended to be imbalanced, but it is. That is well known and has been thoroughly discussed for more than a decade. ...<snip>... Solving those problems means recognizing them and addressing them individually while working toward a single explicit goal.
Before the snip:
If that is the your opinion, came to you by careful consideration I salute you and respect your opinion. If it's merely echoing the opinions tossed about on the board here I can't. Too many times do I see otherwise exceptionally bright people merely echo what others say because it sounds reasonable. I like to think you are not one of those people though.

After the snip:
Yes, and I think that's where the majority of the posters in this thread have missed the point. Andorax has presented a of detecting 'cheese'. Nothing in it says what we must 'do' about cheese. Blending the tool and how we 'should' use it not smart here. We can use this in the cause of balance by recognizing classes/players who are weaker and letting more cheese slide their way, or block cheese.

Example: I recently played a Battlefield control wizard Ultimate Magus(with beguiler/focused conjurer as a base & abrupt jaunt) because I was tired of sucking royally for 10 characters and 4 campaigns straight. Not obscene but pretty optimized. The DM saw tons of cheese and encouraged the rest of the party to optimize to the umpteenth degree. In the end I ended up being one of the weakest members of the party because I was focused on helping the party and having fun; not dominating it as he expected. In the end he got so much cheese he got frustrated because he couldn't provide us a challenge with +5 cr monsters.

Clearly not what the designers intended, or what we intended. I believe the designers provided a framework in which we could have fun. I believe they realized some people have fun min/maxing and tried to provide options for that. They may have missed stuff(based upon these forums, people would indicate a lot of stuff). I do not believe the designers intended people to min/max nearly as much as these forums indicate people do and can.

To reference your carabiners example: dnd 3.5 was probably designed with various stresses and tolerances in mind. Exposed to larger stresses(min/maxing) and it will fracture and bend and break. The cheese detector may help us know when overly large stresses are coming. Then again it may just be a poor player trying to be better. Knowing and talking to your group is still paramount.

Making a better carabiners(a better dnd) is certainly one option. Alternatively paying attention and just having fun with the people on the other end of the carabiner is also an option as well.

[Tyndmyr]

After the snip:
Yes, and I think that's where the majority of the posters in this thread have missed the point. Andorax has presented a of detecting 'cheese'. Nothing in it says what we must 'do' about cheese. Blending the tool and how we 'should' use it not smart here. We can use this in the cause of balance by recognizing classes/players who are weaker and letting more cheese slide their way, or block cheese.

No he didn't. He developed a way of labeling things as cheese. He uses, as an example, Monkey Grip for what cheese is. Monkey Grip is a known trap option, that looks good, but is actually terrible. Optimizers advise you to avoid the hell out of it.

So, his cheese detector seems pretty terrible.

Forget moving to "what should we do with this tool". It's not an effective tool to begin with.

[erikun]

Would you care to explain to me how in the world I managed to actually have fun, with a group of other intelligent, capable adults (who have very little interest in reading forums about D&D and really only think about the game for a few hours each week when we're playing) actually managed to have fun for the last 15 years with a game that simply doesn't work?
I think the problem is that there are likely two (at least) distinct definitions of "work".

On the one hand, you have "work" as 'Being capable of presenting a challange and resolving it consistently.' Indeed, this seems to be your definition, and the system seems to work well in this sense. There is nothing in the Monk of Commoner class that prevents it from making and resolving checks. In this sense, the system works.

Well, except perhaps the Truenamer. And skill checks. And combat maneuvers...

On the other hand, we can define "work" as 'Behaving as presented.' In this sense, the system really doesn't work. Monks and Cleric and Sorcerers are all presented as equal options - but they aren't really equal at all. The Cleric, with domain powers and turning feats, is almost equal to the Fighter... before spellcasting is considered. The Druid is unintentionally better than several other classes. The Monk does a poor job of what they are good at, to say nothing of compared to other classes.

In this sense, the system does not really work... and this is the sense that most people, I'd think, are referring to when they say it doesn't work.


Yes, and I think that's where the majority of the posters in this thread have missed the point. Andorax has presented a of detecting 'cheese'. Nothing in it says what we must 'do' about cheese.
The problem is that the method seems to detect false positives. It calls out Pounce and Monkey Grip as cheese, but using Shapechange to become something with multiple attacks or several spell-like abilities is perfectly acceptable. Given that the first post outright states "Charge -> full attack is way too good of an option to ever pass up," detecting an ACF as cheese but a core class option as not creates a disctince bias.

Second, by labeling it "cheese" implies a negative connotation to the indicated rules, much like calling a class "broken" isn't just a label but implies a negative connotation to the class. I mean, why not just call it "More Powerful Class Options" if the only intent was to locate options that are more powerful/more useful than the base class?

[Sudain]

No he didn't. He developed a way of labeling things as cheese. He uses, as an example, Monkey Grip for what cheese is. Monkey Grip is a known trap option, that looks good, but is actually terrible. Optimizers advise you to avoid the hell out of it.

So, his cheese detector seems pretty terrible.

Forget moving to "what should we do with this tool". It's not an effective tool to begin with.

You are mixing detecting/labeling(which ever semantic makes you happier) with the option being worthwhile/effective. I grant people only tend to use useful cheese so the distinction isn't always apparent.

I encourage you to also consider the implications if you were presented with a tool that could label/detect cheese(so you can ignore the validity of the choice presented in front of you if you like).

[Tyndmyr]

You are mixing detecting/labeling(which ever semantic makes you happier) with the option being worthwhile/effective. I grant people only tend to use useful cheese so the distinction isn't always apparent.

I encourage you to also consider the implications if you were presented with a tool that could label/detect cheese(so you can ignore the validity of the choice presented in front of you if you like).

So, the word "cheesy" has no relationship to balance?

Then why do I care about cheesyness or a cheese detector? And why is the OP talking about power levels?

If it's a "cheese" detector that detects a bunch of random things, some of which are good, some of which are bad, some of which are in between....why do I care in the slightest about it? I could make an equally valid and useless rule that says "if it starts with the letter W, it's cheese".

I want rules that improve the game, not rules that just weirdly twist it.

[Urpriest]

So, the word "cheesy" has no relationship to balance?

Then why do I care about cheesyness or a cheese detector? And why is the OP talking about power levels?

If it's a "cheese" detector that detects a bunch of random things, some of which are good, some of which are bad, some of which are in between....why do I care in the slightest about it? I could make an equally valid and useless rule that says "if it starts with the letter W, it's cheese".

I want rules that improve the game, not rules that just weirdly twist it.

The OP is calling it a cheese detector primarily because the OP is tactless and not particularly in-tune with the culture of the board. I would have thought that much would be clear by now.

What the OP is describing here is a way to characterize a particular level of optimization, the "early 3.5 sample characters" level of optimization. Do you think he is portraying that inaccurately?

[Tyndmyr]

The OP is calling it a cheese detector primarily because the OP is tactless and not particularly in-tune with the culture of the board. I would have thought that much would be clear by now.

What the OP is describing here is a way to characterize a particular level of optimization, the "early 3.5 sample characters" level of optimization. Do you think he is portraying that inaccurately?

Horribly. He is showing known terrible options as "cheesy" or "too good"(if that is in fact what he means).

When someone says something like "gee, Monkey Grip is way too good, it shouldn't be allowed", I become extremely skeptical of their opinions on balance. It's not even good compared to the weapon focus and such that those old chars had.

[Urpriest]

Horribly. He is showing known terrible options as "cheesy" or "too good"(if that is in fact what he means).

When someone says something like "gee, Monkey Grip is way too good, it shouldn't be allowed", I become extremely skeptical of their opinions on balance. It's not even good compared to the weapon focus and such that those old chars had.

So you don't think that, presented with Monkey Grip, the average group that plays characters like the sample characters would think it was OP? Because that's what we're discussing here.

[eggs]

Tweaked that for you.
That's very true, and is almost certainly the cause of the problem.


Yes, and I think that's where the majority of the posters in this thread have missed the point. Andorax has presented a of detecting 'cheese'. Nothing in it says what we must 'do' about cheese.
I was under the impression that "cheese" was a pejorative, and use of the term implied that a class feature, combo, etc. would be better off banned.

In that sense, I do not believe this is a useful decision-making tool, for reasons I made in my first post. eg. By this decision-making framework, a Mailman build would not set off any flags in a Hexblade/Ninja/Sohei party, but a Swashbuckler with Arcane Stunt would fall under "cheese." This sort of labeling would not help game balance, would not contribute positively to game enjoyment, would needlessly reduce players' build options and would add an obfuscating layer of false authority to negotiations of proposed character designs.

This is starting to sound like an attack, but it isn't meant to. I only mean to say that laying out parameters to justify appeals to designer intent is not going to help with balance. Natural Spell was probably not written accidentally, nor was Summon Nature's Ally or the Monk class.

The questions that should be asked to assess balance are different and not much harder than those that the OP proposes (What can this character do? Is it out of line with what I want characters to be able to do?), and will help address balance issues more easily and more directly than these, and do so without the smokescreen of an appeal to an authority who hasn't actually weighed in.

[Tyndmyr]

So you don't think that, presented with Monkey Grip, the average group that plays characters like the sample characters would think it was OP? Because that's what we're discussing here.

They may or may not think that. If they don't understand balance at all, they could literally think anything about it.

However, it is clearly not OP when compared objectively to this power level.

The sole benefit of it is an increase in weapon die. This is, at best, an additional d6 of damage. However, it also provides -2 to hit. Hitting 10% less of the time is a pretty notable damage decrease.

The listed chars have things like Weapon Focus. +1 to hit.

So, if we take the base level 5 paladin there(or the fighter), and compare her weapon focus(longsword) vs Monkey Grip, let's see what we get:

Str 14, level 5, that's +7 to attack, +8 with weapon focus. She deals 1d8+2, and hits a CR 5 basilisk(a classic enemy), 60% of the time, for an average damage of 3.9

With Monkey grip instead? 2d6+2, hits only 45% of the time, for an average of 3.825 damage

No, Monkey Grip does not represent some absurd power boost, even for these chars. Also, it will actually become LESS effective as they gain strength later.

[Bahamut Omega]

First of all, I agree with you Andorax. I believe that when the designers made this they did have a certain sense of non-optimization in mind.

One of the things that annoys me a lot with monster entries (particularly civilized creatures) is when it isn't clear how they survive. Very rarely do you see ranks in Craft or Profession for creatures and I think most PCs and NPCs should show that.

There are two things, though, that annoy the ever loving crap out of me regarding the RAW. First, the Craft and Profession rules are the finest exhibits of the power disparity evident in mundane work and magical work. Should a dwarf craftsman make a masterwork breastplate (350 gp), he'll be done in about 9 weeks (assuming a check of 20). If a wizard casts fabricate, he'll charge you at least 450 gp, then spend the rest of the day deciding which wine he should use to get plastered.

The other thing that annoys the crap out of me is negative levels. Their implementation is confusing, when they become permanent it's not earnest to the time spent in developing the character. Did you spend 5 sessions working that character from 11th to 12th level? *BLAM* You missed the Fort save and get to do it all over again! Fun!

Honestly, I'd rather they never bothered with trying to do negative levels. It's enough of a headache to get the materials together for resurrection, so only focus on the differences in the cause of death and leave it at that.

[Sudain]

The problem is that the method seems to detect false positives. It calls out Pounce and Monkey Grip as cheese, but using Shapechange to become something with multiple attacks or several spell-like abilities is perfectly acceptable. Given that the first post outright states "Charge -> full attack is way too good of an option to ever pass up," detecting an ACF as cheese but a core class option as not creates a disctince bias.

Second, by labeling it "cheese" implies a negative connotation to the indicated rules, much like calling a class "broken" isn't just a label but implies a negative connotation to the class. I mean, why not just call it "More Powerful Class Options" if the only intent was to locate options that are more powerful/more useful than the base class?

Pounce I agree is cheese, as any one dedicated to min/max and melee would have a hard time not going for it. I think there monsters who's main/only gimick IS pounce. Why wouldn't a melee want that after seeing/being a victem to it? If all melee can get it, why the hell wouldn't they? (5 foot step and I get a full attack. You take a move action to get farther away and I'll just charge you and get my full attack.)

Monkey grip, I'd agree with as well. Certainly absurd used in the context of his example & I'd agree that use of it is cheesy. Though if you read it through; I'm pretty damn sure he's not calling out monkey grip ~ he's calling out the method it was used with.

I honestly don't find shapechange cheesy. Maybe I just haven't been exposed to how bad it can get or it's the way I think about wizards. *shrug* I'd think even if I'm a wizard who can cast that; I want to stay AWAY from combat. If I get hit by a dispel magic/anti-magic field and I'm in melee range with people who do melee WAY better than I do. I think I'd be better served by using the same tactics that kept me alive ~16 levels(which for me means keeping at range if at all possible).

I agree, there are social connotations for the word cheese. People here(as far as I see) tend to use it to reference the most powerful and broken tricks. The OP outlines how he defined it. Let me quote below. No surprise they don't match and people get uppity about it. People seem to be getting hung up on pre-conveived notions that 'cheese' is tied to balance(Rule 3 outlines doesn't explicitly deal with balance), specific examples, semantics, and pettiness so far. Maybe people are beyond that and I haven't been able to tell; I don't know.



If another source makes an existing option WAY better then it is without it, chances are that combination was never intended, anticipated, or tested.

If a given feat, ACF, or other choice is inherently and inevitably better such that it might as well be a rewritten class feature, chances are it's overpowered.

Multiple ways to accomplish the same effect are not intended to be collected, surfed and stacked.

[Sudain]

So, the word "cheesy" has no relationship to balance?

Then why do I care about cheesyness or a cheese detector? And why is the OP talking about power levels?

If it's a "cheese" detector that detects a bunch of random things, some of which are good, some of which are bad, some of which are in between....why do I care in the slightest about it? I could make an equally valid and useless rule that says "if it starts with the letter W, it's cheese".

I want rules that improve the game, not rules that just weirdly twist it.

Does the tier system improve the game? I could argue it twists the rules strangely to categorize people as it does. I don't think it improves the game directly; but it is a tool that helps me think about how to approach it.

[Flickerdart]

Does the tier system improve the game? I could argue it twists the rules strangely to categorize people as it does. I don't think it improves the game directly; but it is a tool that helps me think about how to approach it.
It's a framework that allows people to estimate quickly how well almost any given party will work together. Without it, people risk going into a Cleric/Druid/Wizard party as a Samurai and then never mattering ever. So yes, it's an important tool. How does it twist the rules, exactly?

[Tyndmyr]

Does the tier system improve the game? I could argue it twists the rules strangely to categorize people as it does. I don't think it improves the game directly; but it is a tool that helps me think about how to approach it.

It does not twist rules, but is a classification by power. Labeling things by power is useful. Labeling them by some arbitrary "cheese" factor that does not correlate to power is not useful any more than labeling options by "blueness" would be reasonable.

[Sudain]

By this decision-making framework, a Mailman build would not set off any flags in a Hexblade/Ninja/Sohei party, but a Swashbuckler with Arcane Stunt would fall under "cheese."
I apologize for not knowing the builds, but from what my limited understanding of the mailman build is it would flag 'Multiple ways to accomplish the same effect are not intended to be collected, surfed and stacked.'. Should the DM act on it? Depends on the rest of the party, and as you said what the character should and shouldn't be able to do. I'd use it mostly as a 'DM; pay attention here flag'.

[Andorax]

If by "tactless" you mean calling it like I see it...guilty as charged.

If by "out of tune" you mean that I'm pointing out a difference between the basic optimization level of the game as expected by the designers (or, at least in my opinion, as played out by many gaming groups who haven't made a serious study of the game) versus the optimization level of the game often exhibited in these forums, then you're seeing the exact point of this thread.

Reason for using the term "cheese": It fits my own personal prejudices. My thread, my terminology. Want to have the same discussion under the title "How to tell if someone is a decent optimizer"? Go for it. The same discussion might well take place.



No, I don't consider Monkey Grip cheese..that's one of the best mischaracterizations that's been repeated here again and again. What I AM saying, and please re-read the relevant rule, is that it's an example of "one way to do something".

One way to do "bigger weapon": Monkey Grip.
Another way to do "bigger weapon": Goliath
Another way to do "bigger weapon": Strongarm Bracers
Another way to do "bigger weapon"..ish: Heavy weapon.

CHEESE is when a Goliath is monkey-gripping a heavy weapon. In my opinion, these are alternative avenues to a similar effect, not things to be stacked one atop the other ad nauseum in order to get an absurdly out-of-scale result.

Read the same regarding stacking charge multiplication until you get the uber-charger that can, on a successful hit, one-shot any CR-appropriate foe.

Read the same regarding stacking metamagic reductions until you get the mailman that can, with a low-level spell slot, one-shot any CR-appropriate foe.

What's being called out here is not Monkey Grip...it's absurd stacking.

And if you'll re-read what I said, these three rules are general guidelines, and are intended to catch only a small portion of the potential...they're hints that your current line of reasoning/character generation concept is headed into chee high optimization territory.

If that's where your whole group hangs out, then more power to ya...if, on the other hand, you're springing such a combo on a group that plays with the healbot, sword&board, and evoker, you're probably going to cause trouble and strife.

My biggest concern and gripe is that there are players in groups like the above who come to this forum for the first time and ask "how can I make a good bard?" Before anyone brings up the issue of optimization levels, the first thing he's given is the keys to a high-OP, or even a TO build that won't make him any friends at the table and will just flat-out trainwreck the game he's playing in.

...and the worst is, he may not even realize he's doing it, he's just following some advice he got from some neat gamers on this forum he visited once.




And part of the problem also lies in that the Tiers are seen as a proxy for optimization, wrongly so. If a rather terse player came here with a request that looked like:

"Party has a wizard, a cleric, two guys who found this cool ToB book and are playing a swordsage and a warblade. I want to create a bard as part of this party...help?"

Now try to envision what the first 5 replies would look like to that thread. See it yet? Yeah...that's what I'm getting at here.

[Sudain]

It's a framework that allows people to estimate quickly how well almost any given party will work together. Without it, people risk going into a Cleric/Druid/Wizard party as a Samurai and then never mattering ever. So yes, it's an important tool. How does it twist the rules, exactly?
You are right, it doesn't twist the rules. That's mostly a snarky jibe at Tyndmyr calling this system weird. I don't recall(I don't have the books in front of me) the DMG ever mentioning character potential or their power levels, or anything else the tier system is based on though. Then again it's been a long time since I read them thoughly.


It does not twist rules, but is a classification by power. Labeling things by power is useful. Labeling them by some arbitrary "cheese" factor that does not correlate to power is not useful any more than labeling options by "blueness" would be reasonable.

Labeling things by power is useful(because it gives you information?). Labeling things by cheese is useful(because it gives you information?).

I'd like to think you'd want to categorize a locate-city-bomb or wight-Apocalypse as cheese. I'd like to think a DM would want that information so if they see me picking strange feat choices(that match exactly the build) leading up to that they would get a clue and could act.

[Tyndmyr]

I apologize for not knowing the builds, but from what my limited understanding of the mailman build is it would flag 'Multiple ways to accomplish the same effect are not intended to be collected, surfed and stacked.'. Should the DM act on it? Depends on the rest of the party, and as you said what the character should and shouldn't be able to do. I'd use it mostly as a 'DM; pay attention here flag'.

Strictly speaking, you can do a variant of mailman without doing that. Slap on arcane thesis, empower, and a few levels of War Mage and you're not doing any stacking whatsoever, but doing some pretty crazy damage via basically unstoppable touch attacks.

It's actually kind of easy to make some variant of orb wizard fearsome.


If by "tactless" you mean calling it like I see it...guilty as charged.

If by "out of tune" you mean that I'm pointing out a difference between the basic optimization level of the game as expected by the designers (or, at least in my opinion, as played out by many gaming groups who haven't made a serious study of the game) versus the optimization level of the game often exhibited in these forums, then you're seeing the exact point of this thread.

Reason for using the term "cheese": It fits my own personal prejudices. My thread, my terminology. Want to have the same discussion under the title "How to tell if someone is a decent optimizer"? Go for it. The same discussion might well take place.

This indicates that "your personal prejudices" are not useful for describing game balance. I'm at a loss to determine what the "cheese detector is for".

And words are words. Just because you start a thread doesn't make it a good idea to use non-standard definitions of them. At least, not if you want communication to work...and if not, why are you on a forum?


No, I don't consider Monkey Grip cheese..that's one of the best mischaracterizations that's been repeated here again and again. What I AM saying, and please re-read the relevant rule, is that it's an example of "one way to do something".

One way to do "bigger weapon": Monkey Grip.
Another way to do "bigger weapon": Goliath
Another way to do "bigger weapon": Strongarm Bracers
Another way to do "bigger weapon"..ish: Heavy weapon.

1. Monkey Grip and Strongarm Bracers don't stack.
2. Heavy Weapon means a larger damage die, but not actually a bigger weapon. There are some notable differences in this.
3. Goliath is fun and games by itself. Stacking it with Monkey Grip is not profitable. The stacking makes it generally less optimal, not more so. In this case, your "cheese" definition clearly is not meaningful as far as balance or gameplay is considered.


Read the same regarding stacking charge multiplication until you get the uber-charger that can, on a successful hit, one-shot any CR-appropriate foe.

Uber-charger's do not typically require much in the way of stacking abuse. Power attack, Pounce, some strength, and leap attack can plaster things. Shock trooper might also be well used, if high AC worries you.

But what do these things do?
Pounce = move and attack.
Power attack = trade atk for damage.
Leap attack improves power attack, true, but power attack is a prereq for it. You literally cannot get leap attack without getting power attack. It's the very definition of designer intent.

Additionally, you now say your concern is power for a new player. Your label generating toy does not fix that.

[eggs]

I apologize for not knowing the builds, but from what my limited understanding of the mailman build is it would flag 'Multiple ways to accomplish the same effect are not intended to be collected, surfed and stacked.'. Should the DM act on it? Depends on the rest of the party, and as you said what the character should and shouldn't be able to do. I'd use it mostly as a 'DM; pay attention here flag'.
Fair enough, but substitute the phrase "any full caster playing a role other than party support" and my point stands - this framework fails to meet its goal.

[Sudain]

Fair enough, but substitute the phrase "any full caster playing a role other than party support" and my point stands - this framework fails to meet its goal.

Humm... I will have to give this some thought. I really want to cite some reason why you are wrong, but I keep shooting down my own points. lol

Thank you for some thought provoking views. :)

[Andorax]

I'm at a loss to determine what the "cheese detector is for".

I'm equaly at a loss to understand why you're still participating in this discussion.

To quote myself from original post:


If you like High-OP campaigns; if you want triple-digit damage, rocket tag, and immunity roulette in your campaigns, then by all means ignore this whole thread as a disordered rant.


{Scrubbed}

A) The game is being played differently now than it was 10 years ago...by some people. Optimization, grabbing synergistic options from a vast host of 3.X sources to "perfect" a particular build until it vastly outperforms a "regular" build from 10 years ago...has resulted in a game that plays out significantly differently than it did in the past.

Not all 2012 players play like this.

Call the continum using whatever terms you prefer:

Low-OP <-------------------> High-OP
Designer-intended <------------------> Cheesy Munchkinism
Schmedly <-----------------> Gurfagadorian

B) MANY features of the "right hand side" of the continums above are not easily quantifyable. However, I am attempting to offer up a few "rules" that can help to identify a move from left to right. Those rules, to repeat my first post, are:


1) If there's one option out there that makes one (or several) builds SIGNIFICANTLY more powerful, particularly if it's in an unrelated source, chances are that it's a right-moving option.

2) If there's one option that's being taken over and over again, being suggested in every thread even remotely related, to the point where NOT taking that option is considered flat-out dumb by some individuals, chances are that it's a right-moving option.

3) If there are multiple means of doing the same thing from widely disparate sources (even different settings), then gathering them all in one place and stacking them on top of each other to achieve off-the-charts results is a right-moving option.


Is this wording, perhaps, more acceptable to you for getting across what the three rules are, and are for?

[Boci]

1) If there's one option out there that makes one (or several) builds SIGNIFICANTLY more powerful, particularly if it's in an unrelated source, chances are that it's a right-moving option.

So power attack is right-moving option? Weapon finesse? See the problem?

Now you may say "But those are just neccissary ofr the build to function" And? Pounce arguable is as well.


2) If there's one option that's being taken over and over again, being suggested in every thread even remotely related, to the point where NOT taking that option is considered flat-out dumb by some individuals, chances are that it's a right-moving option.

So dipping fighter levels in a feat starved build is right-moving option? Dipping rogue for skill points?

[Hiro Protagonest]

If you like High-OP campaigns; if you want triple-digit damage, rocket tag, and immunity roulette in your campaigns, then by all means ignore this whole thread as a disordered rant.

That's not accurate. I aim for mid-op. All my warblades dip whirlpouncebarian. It is not overpowered.

And it is definitely not overpowered to have a goliath with a subpar feat stretch reality a bit. Any more than it is overpowered for a warblade or swordsage to spend a standard action, swift action, and maneuver to jump 30 feet in the air.

[eggynack]

I'm equaly at a loss to understand why you're still participating in this discussion.

To quote myself from original post:




{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

A) The game is being played differently now than it was 10 years ago...by some people. Optimization, grabbing synergistic options from a vast host of 3.X sources to "perfect" a particular build until it vastly outperforms a "regular" build from 10 years ago...has resulted in a game that plays out significantly differently than it did in the past.

Not all 2012 players play like this.

Call the continum using whatever terms you prefer:

Low-OP <-------------------> High-OP
Designer-intended <------------------> Cheesy Munchkinism
Schmedly <-----------------> Gurfagadorian

B) MANY features of the "right hand side" of the continums above are not easily quantifyable. However, I am attempting to offer up a few "rules" that can help to identify a move from left to right. Those rules, to repeat my first post, are:


1) If there's one option out there that makes one (or several) builds SIGNIFICANTLY more powerful, particularly if it's in an unrelated source, chances are that it's a right-moving option.

2) If there's one option that's being taken over and over again, being suggested in every thread even remotely related, to the point where NOT taking that option is considered flat-out dumb by some individuals, chances are that it's a right-moving option.

3) If there are multiple means of doing the same thing from widely disparate sources (even different settings), then gathering them all in one place and stacking them on top of each other to achieve off-the-charts results is a right-moving option.


Is this wording, perhaps, more acceptable to you for getting across what the three rules are, and are for?

The issue with this system of classification is that it misses out on the actual differences between high power and low power play. Could a dip and pounce filled barbarian build be classified as "cheese" when compared to a barbarian without those features? Probably yes. Would that same barbarian even be relevant in a party with a few tier one characters in it? Probably not. Your system refuses to distinguish between a wizard stacking metamagic to kill an encounter in one shot, and a truenamer stacking truenaming bonuses just trying to survive in this crazy mixed up game we're playing. Your system can actually serve a purpose if it's layered on top of the tier system, but I figure that that's something most dm's do already. If a person builds a tier 1 character and a second person builds a tier 5 character, then a dm should be more permissive in terms of "cheese" to the latter person.

Another major issue with your claims is that it assumes two things about designers. The first assumption is that designers know more about how to play d&d than we do. They may have created the system, but we are now years of optimization knowledge away from them, and have a much greater degree of game balance understanding than they did. The second assumption is that we have any idea what the designers were thinking. Using the original template characters is a way to gain some degree of understanding, but you're appealing to an authority that you lack a total understanding of.

[Tyndmyr]

I'm equaly at a loss to understand why you're still participating in this discussion.

To quote myself from original post:

If you like High-OP campaigns; if you want triple-digit damage, rocket tag, and immunity roulette in your campaigns, then by all means ignore this whole thread as a disordered rant.

I'm not advocating that all games be high-op. I'm pointing out that your "cheese detection" is describing selections that are bad FOR YOUR LEVEL OF OPTIMIZATION as overly good.


{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

A) The game is being played differently now than it was 10 years ago...by some people. Optimization, grabbing synergistic options from a vast host of 3.X sources to "perfect" a particular build until it vastly outperforms a "regular" build from 10 years ago...has resulted in a game that plays out significantly differently than it did in the past.

Sometimes, yes. Sometimes, no. I think you're both underestimating the historical desire for optimization and overestimating the current reach of it. I played 3.x since release, and believe me, spells like the 3.0 haste saw LOTS of play, even early on.

I mean, let's look at those iconic chars, shall we? Mialee (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/cc/20000626b), for instance.

She's not crazy powerful, but she still starts with 15 int, and puts her level up bonus into int. Her initial feat selection is poor, but her skills make sense(well for 3.0). But most important is her spell list. She routinely picks good spells, and not just blasty ones. Hell, sleep is one of her first picks, and that's a solid level one spell. Most of her spells are not blasty.

Looking at that build, I cannot say that the designers wanted me to only blast.


Not all 2012 players play like this.

Not all 2002 players played like this either. Optimizers existed then, Optimizers existed now. The biggest difference is we have more material and more experience. That's it, really.


Call the continum using whatever terms you prefer:

Low-OP <-------------------> High-OP
Designer-intended <------------------> Cheesy Munchkinism
Schmedly <-----------------> Gurfagadorian

There is usually a difference between Optimization and Munchkinism. Munchkinning is typically associated with a gleeful disregard for the actual rules, and simply getting away with as much as you can.

Optimization is strictly legal(accidental errors not withstanding), but depending on the level it's taken to, may not be appropriate.

Designer intent is not as obviously associated with low powered as you seem to think. After all, someone wrote the artificer and thought "hmm, yknow, full BaB and access to all spells just isn't enough. Let's explicitly give them access two levels early".


[quote]B) MANY features of the "right hand side" of the continums above are not easily quantifyable. However, I am attempting to offer up a few "rules" that can help to identify a move from left to right. Those rules, to repeat my first post, are:


1) If there's one option out there that makes one (or several) builds SIGNIFICANTLY more powerful, particularly if it's in an unrelated source, chances are that it's a right-moving option.

I don't see why the unrelated source matters in the slightest. Broken is broken, regardless of if it's from core or some oddball issue of Dragon.


2) If there's one option that's being taken over and over again, being suggested in every thread even remotely related, to the point where NOT taking that option is considered flat-out dumb by some individuals, chances are that it's a right-moving option.

Or, it could just be popular. I admit, this can be a clue, but popularity is not quite the same as power. For instance, core is going to generally be more recommended because people are more familiar with it, and the fellow you're advising is more likely to be able to use it.


3) If there are multiple means of doing the same thing from widely disparate sources (even different settings), then gathering them all in one place and stacking them on top of each other to achieve off-the-charts results is a right-moving option.

Stacking is not always desirable. Let us consider the ubercharger. It is fairly trivial to output enough damage to splatter anything vaguely CR appropriate in a round. You could, if you wish, engage in wild stacking to get damage up to levels best expressed in scientific notation. However, this doesn't really matter except as an amusing forum game. Dead is dead. Pouring more resources into pointlessly larger numbers is not practical in an actual game.


Is this wording, perhaps, more acceptable to you for getting across what the three rules are, and are for?

I understand exactly what they are. However, I do not see that they are particularly good for identifying things that are actually high powered.

[Urpriest]

Tyndymr, I don't understand why you keep pointing out that certain right-moving options are less powerful or less broken than their alternatives. So what? The OP isn't discussing power or brokenness. The OP is discussing qualitative playstyles.

[Aeryr]

I can see, emphatically what you are trying to do. But I don't really see it worth the task. Let me paraphrase to make sure I am following your point.

-When the original game designers designed the game they made flavorful decisions for the sample NPCs.

digression
A rogue might get torches, for example, not using them to deal fire sneak attack damage or as a way to check how deep a pit is, but as a light source. Light sources are quite useful, and torches can have many applications but that is not your point... Your point is that cheesy characters don't use torches?

-Nowadays there are many options, if you pick something other than core flavorful options its cheesy.

-Stacking options is really cheesy. And its not how the original designers intended the game to be played.

Not that I might agree with your point, but I try to get it first, please if the above assumptions were wrong, let me know.

I fear that the biggest problem is your choice of examples.



No, I don't consider Monkey Grip cheese..that's one of the best mischaracterizations that's been repeated here again and again. What I AM saying, and please re-read the relevant rule, is that it's an example of "one way to do something".

One way to do "bigger weapon": Monkey Grip.
Another way to do "bigger weapon": Goliath
Another way to do "bigger weapon": Strongarm Bracers
Another way to do "bigger weapon"..ish: Heavy weapon.

CHEESE is when a Goliath is monkey-gripping a heavy weapon.

Let's see

a goliath is a medium creature
Monkey grip and strongarm bracers let him wield a weapon that is one size larger than him, so he can wield a large weapon.
heavy material would make the large weapon deal damage as a huge weapon, but it would become exotic.

So you use a "level" (goliath are +1 LA) a feat, a magical item and a special material (that's some important investment). so you have a weapon that deals damage as two sizes larger but has a -4 to attack (you are not proficient with it). Seems like a really bad investment (and a really bad grasp of the rules, any medium race without LA, with a large heavy weapon and strongarm bracers would do MUCH better).

Additionally my biggest point against your cheese detector is that you seem to be assuming that core is balanced as the dessigners intended it to be played. I am not going to address caster issues, because that might be obvious, and you specifically addressed them. But what about diplomacy (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9217166#post9217166)? Or forgery?

Forgery is a really flavorful skill right in core. And the only way to detect a forgery is an opposed forgery roll.

[Tyndmyr]

Tyndymr, I don't understand why you keep pointing out that certain right-moving options are less powerful or less broken than their alternatives. So what? The OP isn't discussing power or brokenness. The OP is discussing qualitative playstyles.

Because the indicators on the right did not even correlate with each other, and certainly didn't all correlate with what was detected.

So, it's a mish-mash of unrelated stuff.

The counter-examples of diplomacy and forgery are fantastic. You can use them exactly as intended for their intended purpose, and things go straight to hell.

I mean, ranks in bluff and a potion of glibness, by the book, means that you can convince people that they are, in fact, a potato. And yet...bluffness is MEANT for lies. Including "almost too incredible to consider" level lies. Right there in the section. And glibness? Kind of obviously meant for that. It's only one buff, no stacking of weird things. And rogues and bards lying is all kinds of oldschool gaming.

So, it falls gleefully onto the spectrum he labeled as "Low OP". I don't see how this is a terribly desirable thing.

[Andorax]

To which I repeat, yet again, that these three rules are not intended as a catch-all, or even a catch-most, of right-moving options.

They're a tool, nothing more. Can you find counter-examples that show the tool used in the wrong way? Sure you can. It's not hard. There's a LOT of things going on in 3.5.

[Tyndmyr]

To which I repeat, yet again, that these three rules are not intended as a catch-all, or even a catch-most, of right-moving options.

They're a tool, nothing more. Can you find counter-examples that show the tool used in the wrong way? Sure you can. It's not hard. There's a LOT of things going on in 3.5.

If it doesn't even catch most of the problems, and catches lots of non-problems, then what use is it as a tool?

[Ashdate]

I don't really understand the point of the OP's post, and I'm not sure if the various replies have clarified it for me. Is the problem cheesy combinations due to poorly thought out interactions with obscure sourcebooks, or is the problem that spellcasters such as Druids and Wizards can be played high-op (i.e. "skill mastery" of the system)?

In either case, then the issue really lies on the DM and players to have a conversation about what the characters can do. Players need to be very clear about what rules they're trying to combine wear, and the DM needs to determine whether those combination of rules is a thing that is okay in his game.

I don't think it's necessarily an ideal way of playing 3.5, but the reality is that you're looking at a game that's existed in some form or another for 10 years, combined with the easy of googling "optimization". RAW and optimization guides often work on the premise that DMs are neutral arbiters who will either let you get away with shenanigans. Let me be very clear: D&D 3e (and it's variants) are flawed games. That doesn't mean they're bad games, or that groups can't enjoy or ignore the flaws!

The Wil Wheaton rule applies: don't be a ****! If your DM and fellow players have never heard of the Tier List, don't smugly bring a Natural Spell Druid to the table and cry innocent if it begins to upset other people. Have a conversation about the role you or your fellow players want your Druid to play, and find your niche. Ask at the end of every adventure: did everyone still feel like their character was contributing/awesome? If the Fighter is having a blast, let him have his blast. It's not going to ruffle any feathers on the CODzilla optimization threads, I assure you.

[demigodus]

To which I repeat, yet again, that these three rules are not intended as a catch-all, or even a catch-most, of right-moving options.

They're a tool, nothing more. Can you find counter-examples that show the tool used in the wrong way? Sure you can. It's not hard. There's a LOT of things going on in 3.5.

True, a tool does not need 100% accuracy to be useful.

However, Tyndmyr's argument seems to be that this tool's accuracy is so low, that it really isn't useful.

Trying to clarify how this works isn't really an argument against his point. I'm not familiar enough with the system to gauge how useful a tool this is, just posting cause you two seem to be arguing completely different things.

[Voidling]

Andorax I agree with the main points of your post. :smallsmile:

When people post on the forum and ask for a bard builds and get a build with 1 levels of bard in it ect. But I think a lot of people on this forum have been optimizing 3.5e for over half a decade and your option is best used beta testing 5e. As the rules are being build anew, it would help balance class and power. So we don't see the same problems reappearing.

What you could do to help plays and DMs balance their games is come up with a few rules of thumb to know if a character build might be over powered (cheesy) ect. With weaker class getting more optimizations.

[eggs]

When people post on the forum and ask for a bard builds and get a build with 1 levels of bard in it ect.
Eh? I think you're projecting what you want Andorax to have said, because those builds don't set off any flags by these guidelines.

Not that heavily-multiclassed builds are going to promote brokenness anyway.

For illustration, consider a party composed of:

Psychic Warrior 20
Mystic Ranger 20
Druid 10/Planar Shepherd
Hexblade 4/Monk 2/Abjurant Champion 1/Suel Arcanamach 1/AbjChamp 4/Spellsword 1/War Weaver 5/Dragon Disciple 2


The OP's parameters will flag the Mystic Ranger as broken.
A multiclass-based guideline will flag the Hexblade multiclass as the broken one.
But when considering the actual abilities, it's very clear that the Druid is the build that's likely to tear the game apart; the other three are more or less on the same playing field.

[Tyndmyr]

Andorax I agree with the main points of your post. :smallsmile:

When people post on the forum and ask for a bard builds and get a build with 1 levels of bard in it ect.

Oh...that's a problem? Citation please.

[Andorax]

If it doesn't even catch most of the problems, and catches lots of non-problems, then what use is it as a tool?

Opinions vary. You see the tool as low-value, few useful hits and many false positives.

From what I can tell, the reverse is true. In many cases, it's going to provide useful feedback.

Others are welcome to form their own opinions.

[Tyndmyr]

Opinions vary. You see the tool as low-value, few useful hits and many false positives.

From what I can tell, the reverse is true. In many cases, it's going to provide useful feedback.

Others are welcome to form their own opinions.

Do you have any objective metric by which you can justify the usefulness of this tool?

The tier system at least produces a fairly comprehensive list of results that we can all look at and say "yeah, that looks about right". We can easily evaluate it's effectiveness by it's results. Can your tool do the same?

[Flickerdart]

If anything, it's been repeatedly demonstrated that this so-called "tool" pings on numerous things that are not even closely related to cheese, and stays silent on the majority of the Big Five and their arsenal. It falls on you, its creator, to demonstrate some sort of proof that it does anything at all.

[Urpriest]

If anything, it's been repeatedly demonstrated that this so-called "tool" pings on numerous things that are not even closely related to cheese, and stays silent on the majority of the Big Five and their arsenal. It falls on you, its creator, to demonstrate some sort of proof that it does anything at all.

It's also been repeatedly demonstrated that the metric by which the Big Five are cheesy (power, ability to dominate the game) has nothing to do with the tool proposed in this thread, so I don't get why it keeps being brought up.

Andorax is proposing a way to characterize the prejudices and comfort levels of low-op groups. Tyndymyr has provided one relevant counterexample, namely that the categorization scheme doesn't flag the "You're a potato" bluff check. While this is potentially relevant, Andorax can always add more rules. It would be much more relevant if anyone in this thread could provide a single example of something that breaks one of Andorax's rules and would still not be considered cheesy by a low-op low-knowledge group.

[Tyndmyr]

Andorax is proposing a way to characterize the prejudices and comfort levels of low-op groups. Tyndymyr has provided one relevant counterexample, namely that the categorization scheme doesn't flag the "You're a potato" bluff check. While this is potentially relevant, Andorax can always add more rules. It would be much more relevant if anyone in this thread could provide a single example of something that breaks one of Andorax's rules and would still not be considered cheesy by a low-op low-knowledge group.

His stacking combo was kind of terrible. Elements of it were fine. For instance, taking Goliath is a solid choice all by itself, and might be out of place in a low-op group.

Heavy weapons are sufficiently expensive that they're not efficient until fairly high leveled play. Things like making your sword flaming(not a stacking thing, fairly classic) are more cost efficient initially. Monkey Grip? Already shown that the very classic option used in the iconic builds he's comparing against, Weapon Focus, is superior.

And...monkey grip and strongarm bracers don't stack, so that's just pure wasted money

So, by taking all these things, he's just making himself less effective than he would be by playing in a fairly low op fashion. Anyone who understands these rules would look at this, and would scratch his head at all the splatbook diving instead of just grabbing power attack. This is a pretty good example of a false positive.

[demigodus]

His stacking combo was kind of terrible. Elements of it were fine. For instance, taking Goliath is a solid choice all by itself, and might be out of place in a low-op group.

Heavy weapons are sufficiently expensive that they're not efficient until fairly high leveled play. Things like making your sword flaming(not a stacking thing, fairly classic) are more cost efficient initially. Monkey Grip? Already shown that the very classic option used in the iconic builds he's comparing against, Weapon Focus, is superior.

And...monkey grip and strongarm bracers don't stack, so that's just pure wasted money

So, by taking all these things, he's just making himself less effective than he would be by playing in a fairly low op fashion. Anyone who understands these rules would look at this, and would scratch his head at all the splatbook diving instead of just grabbing power attack. This is a pretty good example of a false positive.

From what I can tell or Urpriest's post, this isn't supposed to flag what is actually broken or not.

It is supposed to flag what would give new players/DM's knee jerk reactions before they actually ran the numbers. Or I might be reading his post completely wrong.

[Menteith]

Also, many feats that might fall under the stacking category (and drastically improve effectiveness) could easily be considered intended by the developers. For example, Spirited Charge, a Valorous Lance, Riding Boots, and Power Attack can cause a devastating amount of damage, but I would argue that these were all intended to stack, as there are specific rules for how multiple instances of doubling stack ("more than one doubling of damage increases the damage multiple by one per additional doubling, so double-double damage is triple damage, tripble double damage is quadruple damage, and so on.")

This, to me, means that continuously stacking this multiplier is intended and thought out by the developers - but it would be considered "cheese" (a term with some highly negative connotations) by this tool.

[Aeryr]

It would be much more relevant if anyone in this thread could provide a single example of something that breaks one of Andorax's rules and would still not be considered cheesy by a low-op low-knowledge group.

That seems like a valid approach, and since I do actually believe that Andorax's objective is good I will try to provide some feedback on that direction. But since I fear that talking about a "low-op" "low-knowledge" is going to be a tad difficult I'll try to work with stuff as designed and written.



Rule 1: If another source makes an existing option WAY better then it is without it, chances are that combination was never intended, anticipated, or tested.

<snip>

Rule 2: If a given feat, ACF, or other choice is inherently and inevitably better such that it might as well be a rewritten class feature, chances are it's overpowered.

Two immediate offenders leap to mind here.

Base: Druid with Natural Spell feat. The ability to wildshape allows for lots of combat capabilities, while the ability to be a full progression caster allows for considerable spellpower. It's "unfun" to have to swap back and forth between do-stuff-in-combat form and cast-my-spells form.

Intent: Allow for the Druid to not burn through all their wildshapes just by having to cast a few spells (say, if the Druid's also the party's healer). Keep from having an "unfun" option.

Reality: Druids don't get a feat at 6th level. This is a feat-consuming class feature that no druid (that hasn't for some reason traded away their wild shape ability) would even hesitate for a moment to grab. The combat benefits of being wild-shaped all the time are too strong to give up for a moment once they're available, partly due to additional sources introducing still more and more powerful animals to wildshape into.

Analysis: Wild shape was probably intended to be something that you changed out from time to time, not something you spent all of your time in from the moment you're able to do so. A feat that was intended for preventing 'unfun' options is overused and overtaken to the point of being necessary.


Rule 1 might conflict with Rule 2, on Natural spell.

Natural spell is in the same book as the druid.

Rule 2: If a given feat, ACF, or other choice is inherently and inevitably better such that it might as well be a rewritten class feature, chances are it's overpowered.

Natural spell is a given example, by the OP of overpowered feat, so I assume that the OP believes that natural spell is overpowered.

Rule 1: If another source makes an existing option WAY better then it is without it, chances are that combination was never intended, anticipated, or tested.

Natural spell is an existing option that makes druids way better than they are without it. The OP might believe, by his rules, that natural spell was "never intended, anticipated (or tested) to be taken by a druid".

Okay, lets assume for a moment that the designers actually never intended (or anticipated) for a druid to take natural spell, at all. Who would take natural spell? No other class, but the druid, offered wildshape when natural spell was written.

Now, lets assume that the designers intended the druid to take natural spell, but they never tried/tested it. Lets search for an example were a druid, as written, has natural spell as its sixth level feat.

The master of many forms, is a prc intended for a druid (it plays better on a ranger, that's cheesy or a divine minion that's super cheesy) that uses wildshape regularly, normally is considered not greater than druid, but it offers a druid example character stated by the designers. I hope we can assume that the master of many forms main feature is wildshape, so I hope that we can assume that the designers intended to balance its wildshape at least with what was available at the moment.


Galatea: Female elf druid 5/master of many forms 2; CR 7; Medium humanoid;
...
Skills and Feats: Knowledge (nature) +12, Listen +18, Search +2, Spot +18, Survival +16; Alertness, Endurance, Natural Spell.

So I can assume that the designers were aware of the ruling in natural spell, and thought that it was a good feat for someone who liked to use wildshape. As the OP mentioned above, a character that doesn't use wildshape, won't be tacking natural spell in the first place.

The rules in the OP fail to deliver in one of its explicit examples, one example that I feel that is not a bad example, since its actually cheesy, in my opinion the problem is approaching cheesiness as "unknown to designers".

I make some addendums if a low op real life example is considered as a valid point against the ruling above.

Addendum, once after reading the combat section I used improved trip with a reach weapon in a LOW op game. The DM banned it outright because it was extremely overpowered that I could make enemies fell prone with just "a couple of rolls".

Second addendum, I have seen players in my low op group refraining from taking toughness since it is over powered in a wizard. I actually saw a wizard, once, that expend all his feats in toughness he was called over powered.

Third addendum, in that same group metamagic is considered stupid, since it raise the level of spells.

Edit: In my opinion is the poor wording of the rules and the poor choice of examples that work against the intent of the OP. As I pointed above the stacking example is fairly bad, and this doesn't address skills right there in core. It is also really difficult to know how the designers intended to actually use the characters, there are many examples of broken stuff that works perfectly fine by the rules and doesn't ring any bell on the radar of the OP.

[Urpriest]

From what I can tell or Urpriest's post, this isn't supposed to flag what is actually broken or not.

It is supposed to flag what would give new players/DM's knee jerk reactions before they actually ran the numbers. Or I might be reading his post completely wrong.

No, that's completely right. And since I've said this explicitly in several posts that Tyndymyr quoted (and thus, presumably, read), Tyndymyr is well aware of this.


snip

This is a good point. But I think what's going on here is not so much that "duh" options are ok under a low-op paradign, but that the designers may not have expected "duh" options to be "duh" options. For example, if they expected a Druid to primarily cast spells out of combat and to spend most of their time in their natural form, then Natural Spell wouldn't be nearly as much of a no-brainer. So while I don't think low-op groups will avoid no-brainer options, they will avoid the playstyles that make those options no-brainers.

[Aeryr]

First of all, excuse my poor English by "duh" you mean stupid options, don't you?

I can see your point though:

"Low-op groups won't avoid no-brainer options, they will avoid the playstyles that make those options no-brainers."

As going into what low-op groups do, or don't do, doesn't really seem to be a fair approach to me:

-Not everyone is the same, I mean as an individual, so making a generalization can leave many people out.
-Not everyone has the same available resources, perhaps a druid won't ever consider taking natural spell if he has access to loads of other feats, but if limited to core only he might stumble into natural spell fairly easily.
-Neither of us can really (and sincerely) talk from a completely low-op point of view. If we were to try low-op we might go for stupid optimization instead of low, we know the rules and understand them, we might avoid the strong combinations but not due to unawareness.
-If the above point wouldn't hold true, we might talk about low-op at some point, it would be really difficult to generalize our experience to the whole group of "low-op" players. Or even agree in how low is low-op.

Still, your comment is a really good suggestion right there to the OP, and he might want to consider adding a clause in that direction in his OP.

[eggs]

I'm just going to go down a list of ACFs looking for clear flags:


Substitute Power (Ardent) - Removes the limitation imposed by the mantle mechanic, but doesn't introduce anything new or gamebreaking. Most groups I've played with informally make this sort of swap anyway. I wouldn't call it banworthy, especially alongside psions and sorcerers.
Dominant Ideal (Ardent) - Breaks two of the big rules of psionics. Clearly banworthy, unless the game's high enough op that metamagic abuse is expected.
Psionic Artificer (Artificer) - Swaps artificer crafting feats into psionic versions, which MIC allows to create magic items as normal. Adds versatility to an already versatile class, but I wouldn't normally ban it since it doesn't make the class more powerful in its central function of churning time into money.
Warforged Sub Levels (Artificer) - Nobody ever argued with a CL boost, but I wouldn't ban it.
Goliath Sub Levels (Barbarian) - Bonus size when raging
Spirit Totem (Barbarian) - Pounce or Improved Grab for Fast Movement. Pounce may be inappropriate for low-op games, but Improved Grab is good clean fun, even if it does outclass +10ft speed.
Streetfighter (Barbarian) - Replace low DR with meaningful charge benefits. Again, a bit of a power increase, but not something I'd ban.
Trapkiller (Barbarian) - Replace trapsense with modified trapfinding. Improves versatility, not something I'd ban.
Gnome Sub Levels (Bard) - Better cantrips, replace the worst songs. Still not banworthy.
Half-Elf Sub Levels (Bard) - Replace countersong with something occasionally useful. I wouldn't ban it.
Spellbreaker Song (Bard) - Replace countersong with something almost (but not quite) as worthless.
Ectopic Ally (Divine Mind) - Replace 5ft of aura with astral construct. I wouldn't ban it, on account of it giving the Divine Mind a reason to exist.
Hidden Talent (Divine Mind) - Replace Wild Talent with Hidden Talent. Straight power boost that does little to break the game beyond making DM playable before ECL 5.
Spell-to-Power Erudite (Erudite) - Broken as hell. Adds crazy versatility to already versatile class, and opens all sorts of abusable spell/power interactions.
Mantled Erudite (Erudite) - Replace feat with mantle ability and mantle access. Accelerate accrual of certain powers at no notable cost (especially if it's allowed to combine with the Ardent's Substitute Mantle ability). I wouldn't ban it.
Zhentarim Soldier (Fighter) - Intimidate abilities for free. But the fighter is normally at a total loss for level-appropriate abilities past ECL 6; this comes close to fixing that. Not ban-worthy.
Dark Moon Disciple Sub Levels (Monk) - Trade a couple gp's worth of daily healing for a reason to play the Monk class past level 2. I wouldn't ban it.
Fighting Styles (Monk) - Greatly expand bonus feat options. I wouldn't dream of banning it; I'd almost expect it, even.
Wild Monk (Monk) - Trade a bunch of abilities for Wild Shape. Clearly a good trade, but still not any scarier than T3.
Harmonious Knight (Paladin) - Replace Detect Evil and Remove disease with Bard buffs. If they aren't broken on the otherwise dramatically stronger Bard class, there's no way they're broken here.
Mystic Fire Knight (Paladin) - Replace Remove disease with dispelling and casting disruption. I wouldn't ban it; Paladin class ends at ECL 5 otherwise.
Shadow Cloak Knight (Paladin) - Hide in Plain Sight in exchange for a Remove disease use. Replicates the Shadowdancer's version, but (Ex). If I banned it, it wouldn't be on account of cheese/brokenness.
Personal Construct (Shaper) - Automatically quickened Astral Construct. Can be duplicated with Linked Power+Catfall, but the effect is still very powerful. I'd ban it except in high-op games.
Mantled Warrior (Psychic Warrior) - Expand power options, gain mantle ability at the cost of a feat. I'd allow it.
Alternate Weapon Styles (Ranger) - More options are a straight boost to the class, but don't make it super powerful. I'd allow it.
Mystic Ranger (Ranger) - 5th level spells at sorcerer advancement rate, full CL, loses companion. I wouldn't ban it, but it's pretty powerful in the level 6-10 range, and it certainly *looks* like something a low-op/low-knowledge group would jump on.
Wild Shape (Ranger) - Trade weapon styles for fast movement and Small/Medium Wild Shape. Straight power increase, but it would be hilarious to see it banned in a game where the core druid was allowed.
Trap Expert (Ranger) - Trapfinding instead of Track. Every Ranger will probably want it, but it won't break the game for any of them.
Penetrating Strike (Rogue) - Straight power boost, but it's hard to frame a character's ability to do half its normal damage in certain circumstances as anything resembling gamebreaking.
Hidden Talent (Soulknife) - Straight-up added power. But still not enough to justify levels in the class.
Arcane Stunt (Swashbuckler) - Trade small bonus to the worst save for swift action blur effects. Not a huge benefit, but one that every Swash build without Daring Outlaw is probably going to want.
Educated Wilder (Wilder) - Trade a worthless class ability for more powers known. Every Wilder wants to take this. And why not? - it's still fewer powers known at a time than the Psion, Ardent or Psychic Warrior.
Shifter Sub Levels (Wilder) - Increased power availability, extra PP, better shifting. All direct power increases, but none that are unbalancing, gamebreaking, or inappropriate in low-op games.
Abrupt Jaunt (Wizard) - Losing the familiar is a big deal, but it can be bought with a feat. This ability would be worth quite a few feats. I can see a strong case for banning it on sight.


Total I see flagged: 34
Total I'd ban for low- to mid-op play: 4 (call it 5, if looking at what's going to scare a low-knowledge, low-op group)

So yeah, I'm seeing a lot of false positives (both in terms of optimization brokenness and in terms of what *looks* like optimization brokenness)

[Urpriest]

First of all, excuse my poor English by "duh" you mean stupid options, don't you?

I can see your point though:

"Low-op groups won't avoid no-brainer options, they will avoid the playstyles that make those options no-brainers."

As going into what low-op groups do, or don't do, doesn't really seem to be a fair approach to me:

-Not everyone is the same, I mean as an individual, so making a generalization can leave many people out.
-Not everyone has the same available resources, perhaps a druid won't ever consider taking natural spell if he has access to loads of other feats, but if limited to core only he might stumble into natural spell fairly easily.
-Neither of us can really (and sincerely) talk from a completely low-op point of view. If we were to try low-op we might go for stupid optimization instead of low, we know the rules and understand them, we might avoid the strong combinations but not due to unawareness.
-If the above point wouldn't hold true, we might talk about low-op at some point, it would be really difficult to generalize our experience to the whole group of "low-op" players. Or even agree in how low is low-op.

Still, your comment is a really good suggestion right there to the OP, and he might want to consider adding a clause in that direction in his OP.

By "duh options" I meant "no-brainers".

I agree that it's hard to generalize to a group of players. As was discussed awhile ago in this thread, I see this as the lowest category in something parallel to the tier system: the idea is not so much to characterize how particular people play, as to provide a set of categories in order to let people talk about optimization levels, parallel to the tier system's categories for the mechanical attributes of classes. I think Andorax's category is helpful in this regard in that it seems to be where many of the people who don't understand things like optimization and the tier system are coming from, while putting a sufficiently positive spin on it that they might identify themselves with it. But I agree that it's hardly going to be one-size-fits-all.

[Togo]

I think this is a useful analysis. It picks out some of the points that I usually look for in deciding what to allow in my games, so in that sense it's a variation on a process that I already use, and find helpful.

However, it does suffer from the same constraints as the Tier system. It's a generic system that isn't tailored to a particular game, so some aspects are simply going to be incorrect. But as long as it's understood that it's a set of hints for DMs to watch for, I think it works well. In particular I'd recommend people looking at particular combinations and asking themselves whether this is something the game would benefit from having that character be better at it.

I'm a little suspicious of the wording of rule 2. There are some feats that people always take. Two-handed fighters take power attack, archers take rapid shot, throwing builds take quick draw, two-weapon fighting builds take two-weapon fighting. These feats do make a great deal of difference to the build, but I'm not sure that means they're overpowered. Clearly you can set the threshold of capability as low as you want, but feats were written to enable you to customise your character. Feats such as quick draw and two-weapon fighting are not necessary to throw weapons or fight two-handed, but the system goes out of it's way to punish you for not taking them. The intention is that not that they are bonuses, but that they are requirements for opening up certain styles of build.

Also, just had to say that I almost never take natural spell, despite playing druids frequently, because in the games I play it tends to be desperately underpowered. Staying a long time in an animal or plant form is impractical, because you miss out on the social interaction, because you can't manipulate your enviroment properly, or because you're too big and heavy for some environments.

Rule 3 is also an interesting idea, but it takes what I would have thought is an obvious idea, and codifies it in a way that punishes more intended combinations. Stacking synergy bonuses is not just allowable, there's even a little table listing synergy bonuses to encourage you to do it. Combining synergy with lots of ranks and a high skill and a feat is stacking things from four different sources, but the result is very much how the game is intended to be played.

I think the key is actually, despite some of the protests, stacking from different sources. One of the (many) reasons why the polymorph line is so overpowered is that the monsters were not designed with polymorph in mind. It's also worth looking at combinations that obviously were intended. The pseudo-dragon is a monster that isn't designed as an encounter, but as a desirable uber-familiar, and I use that as a good guide for what is and isn't overpowered for advanced familiars in general

I think it's a useful analysis. The most important thing about it is that it highlights the key point that just because you're allowing material from source X, and from source Y, doesn't mean you have to permit every cominbation.

[Tyndmyr]

Also, many feats that might fall under the stacking category (and drastically improve effectiveness) could easily be considered intended by the developers. For example, Spirited Charge, a Valorous Lance, Riding Boots, and Power Attack can cause a devastating amount of damage, but I would argue that these were all intended to stack, as there are specific rules for how multiple instances of doubling stack ("more than one doubling of damage increases the damage multiple by one per additional doubling, so double-double damage is triple damage, tripble double damage is quadruple damage, and so on.")

This, to me, means that continuously stacking this multiplier is intended and thought out by the developers - but it would be considered "cheese" (a term with some highly negative connotations) by this tool.

Additionally, things like Power Attack and Leap Attack were obviously intended to stack, since one of them is a prerequisite for the other. A clearer indication of designer intent, I cannot imagine.


From what I can tell or Urpriest's post, this isn't supposed to flag what is actually broken or not.

It is supposed to flag what would give new players/DM's knee jerk reactions before they actually ran the numbers. Or I might be reading his post completely wrong.

In my experience, what gives people knee-jerk reactions varies wildy from one person to the next. One DM might hate magic, and anything that smells of making a mundane char magical is something he hates. Another fellow Ive gamed with has a knee jerk reaction vs anything he sees as emo.

*shrug* I don't see this list as especially helpful for that, either. Better advice would be to encourage people to just avoid relying on knee-jerk reactions.


This is a good point. But I think what's going on here is not so much that "duh" options are ok under a low-op paradign, but that the designers may not have expected "duh" options to be "duh" options. For example, if they expected a Druid to primarily cast spells out of combat and to spend most of their time in their natural form, then Natural Spell wouldn't be nearly as much of a no-brainer. So while I don't think low-op groups will avoid no-brainer options, they will avoid the playstyles that make those options no-brainers.

Every new player I've seen that picked druid...shapeshifting was a notable portion of why they picked it. They tended to use it a lot. This doesn't seem wildly unusual.

So, no, I don't think that it's normal to avoid the playstyle that makes Natural Spell desireable. Plenty of people will run across it by merely using the iconic feature of the druid class as intended. Not every person, and not in every game, but quite a lot of them, yeah.

Also, Eggs, I liked your list. Definitely seems reasonable.

[jaybird]

Rule 2: If a given feat, ACF, or other choice is inherently and inevitably better such that it might as well be a rewritten class feature, chances are it's overpowered.


Just jumping in a sec, and I'm sure this has already been brought up...Power Attack (Deadly Aim as well, if Pathfinder is included) is overpowered? I mean, I know "power" is right there in the name, but... :smalltongue:

[willpell]

Reality: Druids don't get a feat at 6th level. This is a feat-consuming class feature that no druid (that hasn't for some reason traded away their wild shape ability) would even hesitate for a moment to grab.

Just for the record, my druid Willow doesn't have and won't have Natural Spell, simply for personality reasons; she has a very clear distinction between the skillsets of "cast healing and buff spells on people you like" and "eat the faces off people you don't like".

(Digression: IMO, situations like this are exactly why the Stormwind Fallacy keeps cropping up; while it may be possible to both optomize well and roleplay well, it's certainly possible to sacrifice one for the sake of the other and get a lot more options than if you had to make them both work. As an ardent member of the pro-roleplay camp, I personally believe you should never hesitate to give up a little power in order to better portray the character as a unique and complex individual - besides, there might be bonus XP in it for you. :smallwink: )

[Flickerdart]

Counterpoint: you don't need mechanics to make a unique character. Your Druid could just as easily have the feat and use self-buffs while in animal form, to bite people's faces off all the better.

[willpell]

Well it's very much in-character for her to want to compartmentalize. Even if she had the feat, she wouldn't use it; she assumes animal form as a primal release, and wouldn't want to muck around with spells in that form, as it would defeat the purpose of transforming into a beast according to her ethos. So she might as well just take a different feat.

I've had ideas about some sort of points cost system for feats which would let you get more feats as long as they weren't very strong, letting you personalize a character a bit more without throwing off CR calculations too much. Natural Spell is obviously a high point-value feat; this would further offer a temptation to skip it, since you could potentially afford two or three individually weaker feats in its place. Just a thought.

[Aeryr]

Willpell sorry to tell you, but feats are not strong on their own. They become strong when they are combined with other stuff.

For example:

Power attack might be good for a melee fighter, but probably bad for a wizard (until he uses polymorph)

Skill focus might seem useless at face value, but skill focus (diplomacy) in a build optimizing diplomacy? It becomes much more stronger.

And if you let me take two "weak" feats instead of one "strong" feat I might end just optimizing to make the character much stronger with those two feats.

[Togo]

Counterpoint: you don't need mechanics to make a unique character. Your Druid could just as easily have the feat and use self-buffs while in animal form, to bite people's faces off all the better.

Sure, but to create the unique character that he wanted to create, he went for the less optimised option. Optimised builds support a smaller subset of concepts than the combination of optimised and non-optimised builds. Thus if you want to prioritise getting a particular character, you may find that optimised choices are not for you.

[eggynack]

Willpell sorry to tell you, but feats are not strong on their own. They become strong when they are combined with other stuff.

For example:

Power attack might be good for a melee fighter, but probably bad for a wizard (until he uses polymorph)

Skill focus might seem useless at face value, but skill focus (diplomacy) in a build optimizing diplomacy? It becomes much more stronger.

And if you let me take two "weak" feats instead of one "strong" feat I might end just optimizing to make the character much stronger with those two feats.

I don't think that this arguement is necessarily a barrier to the construction of a points based feat system. Generally you should just price things under the assumption that the feats are being taken with some degree of character design knowledge, and thus at something near the best case scenario. Power attack should be priced for fighters, because a wizard will never take the feat in the first place. Another advantage to a system like this is that you can price melee feats lower, thus granting those characters some versatility in what feat chains they select. There are obvious exceptions to the high op pricing system, like if a feat is excellent in a narrow combo, but weak elsewhere.

[sonofzeal]

Rule 1: If another source makes an existing option WAY better then it is without it, chances are that combination was never intended, anticipated, or tested.
Counterexample: Paragnostic Initiate makes Truenamer WAY better. However, it's immediately obvious that it was intended, because Truespeaking is specifically flagged as a possibility. Also, combining the two does not make Truespeaker overpowered. It fails all tests for cheese, and yet gets flagged by this rule.


Rule 2: If a given feat, ACF, or other choice is inherently and inevitably better such that it might as well be a rewritten class feature, chances are it's overpowered.
Counterexample: "Improved Natural Attack" for Monks is almost invariably a step up for them, but the result is hardly overpowered.


Rule 3: Multiple ways to accomplish the same effect are not intended to be collected, surfed and stacked.
Counterexample: There's many ways of boosting attack and damage - higher Strength, enchanted weapons, Weapon Focus/Spec, etc. And a minute's look at listed NPCs shows that many of them collect and stack multiple of these. Not only is it intended, it's often outright necessary.


Conclusion: This approach only functions from the assumption that everything is pretty well balanced right from ground zero, which is verifiably not the case. Some things need significant boosts, others are massively overpowered just by themselves. All this system amounts to is an excuse for naive DMs to lay the banhammer on perfectly reasonable content.

[Hecuba]

<natural spell post>

I think what you might be missing here is the fact that natural spell was actually introduced in 3e, not 3.5 (where testing & proofing was arguably even worse).

To examine what the intended role of that particular feat would be, you would need to go back and look at the examples from Masters of the Wild and the 3e stuff that came after it.

Ultimately, however authorial intent can be a trap: it's very important if you want to examine design metaphors and process (to be fair, this is one of my favorite things to do). As a source of authority, however, it doesn't hold any inherent privledge. Though I don't happen to believe RAW does either.

Both critical reading & analyitical reading can certainly inform your decision making process, but they cannot make the decision for you nor garantee that it will be a good one.

[Aeryr]

I don't think that you are making a valid counterpoint to my natural spell post, you might even be reaffirming my argument.

Druids were tested during 3.0 (whether well tested or badly tested is not in the OP rules) and natural spell was added to them. After having tested both the class and the feat the designers introduced both in the same book, the PHB of 3.5 (the druid in 3.5 is not the same that the druid in 3.0, so it was tweaked for better or worse).

Overall the class/feat in 3.5 was tested. By the OP it is overpowered so the designers didn't intend it to be used that way, but its the only way it can be used.

[Hecuba]

I don't think that you are making a valid counterpoint to my natural spell post, you might even be reaffirming my argument.

Druids were tested during 3.0 (whether well tested or badly tested is not in the OP rules) and natural spell was added to them. After having tested both the class and the feat the designers introduced both in the same book, the PHB of 3.5 (the druid in 3.5 is not the same that the druid in 3.0, so it was tweaked for better or worse).

Overall the class/feat in 3.5 was tested. By the OP it is overpowered so the designers didn't intend it to be used that way, but its the only way it can be used.

I wasn't so much taking arguing with your point as your methodology: you pointed to a 3.5 splatbook character when examining authorial intent for a 3e feat.

Unless you're making the case that Natural Spell's 3.5 revision was significant enough to be a redesign*, then to examine authorial intent, we should examining the game as it was when the feat was written in Masters of the Wild.

As to your comments on the cheese detector itself, I don't know that we do disagree: I haven't been able to form a cogent opinion on it thus far. My only direct comment would be to note that, unless one is making a critical review of design or redesigning something oneself, designer intent is probably just as much a trap as strict RAW.

*This I would argue with, since the only change I'm aware with is that you no longer had to be able to manipulate material components and focuses in for. Certainly a notable change, but I wouldn't say it the feat was redesigned. They even kept the example case, verbatum.

[eggs]

Unless you're making the case that Natural Spell's 3.5 revision was significant enough to be a redesign*, then to examine authorial intent, we should examining the game as it was when the feat was written.
That only makes sense if the authors agreed to reprint a random sampling of 3.0 feats in their 3.5 player's handbook.

But that's not likely. What is likely is that the designers looked at the feat, thought it was something which should be incorporated into the core game, then added it.

[Hecuba]

That only makes sense if the authors agreed to reprint a random sampling of 3.0 feats in their 3.5 player's handbook.

But that's not likely. What is likely is that the designers looked at the feat, thought it was something which should be incorporated into the core game, then added it.

Which is a valid point if examining the design of 3.5 core, but is markedly different than examining the design of the feat itself.

I'm by no means saying that 3.5 was not a redesign of 3e: I'm saying that not all the individual feats and elements were significantly redesigned.

There is a difference between what what the designers of 3.5 core intended to accomplish by including Natural Spell and what the author of Natural Spell intended to accomplish be designing the feat.
The former speaks towards the design goals, methodology, and playtesting of the 3.5 revision.
The later speaks towards the design goals and methodology of that specific feat.

If you do believe that the 3.5 redesign of Natural Spell was non-trivial (which I don't, but I'll work under the premise), then we still shoudn't be looking at a Comp. Adv. sample character as a strong indicator of authorial intent (unless we happen to know that that sample character was written by the author doing the revision of that feat).
That splat post-dates the 3.5 revision as well, and for authorial intent, we want to be examining the game as it was when the element in question was designed.

[willpell]

I've had ideas about some sort of points cost system for feats which would let you get more feats as long as they weren't very strong, letting you personalize a character a bit more without throwing off CR calculations too much. Natural Spell is obviously a high point-value feat; this would further offer a temptation to skip it, since you could potentially afford two or three individually weaker feats in its place. Just a thought.

Interestingly I posted this shortly before finding SonofZeal's thread in which he introduced me to a feat point system that someone else had made up and which he was revising. Great minds....

[Grim Reader]

Conclusion: This approach only functions from the assumption that everything is pretty well balanced right from ground zero, which is verifiably not the case. Some things need significant boosts, others are massively overpowered just by themselves. All this system amounts to is an excuse for naive DMs to lay the banhammer on perfectly reasonable content.

This.

What is more, when designers have realized the original setup needs a patch, it flags the patch as cheese. ACFs are a good example, as is Pounce. When designers introduce an ACF that is outright better than the option it replaces, that is pretty strong evidence that even the designers realized the original option needed fixing.

So it directly contradicts its own stated intent of supporting the palystyle the designers intended.

[Fitz10019]

This Basic Cheese Detector fails to ping on Water Orcs. I'll wait for BCD 2.0.