When does optimization become Cheese?

[killianh]

Title says it all. When would you guys say that optimization reaches the point where it's considered cheese? The way I see it there are a few key things that show up to really make a build cheesy

1) Involves some sort of looping trick. Think of chain gating, or how Pun Pun gains infinite attributes. The infinite damage trick or the save game trick are another good few.

2) Involves an obscure interpretation of the rules. Planar Sheppard was a pretty OP class, but when people started to interpret the planar bubble as capable of changing time flow for the party (which though not stated RAW there was no RAW against it) allowing 10 rounds of action to each 1 round of the enemies. Another is Incarnate Construct which works on all constructs, but (like above) has no ruling for or against it's use on living constructs like the warforged (though is obviously designed for something with no Con or mental scores)

3) Excessive templates\PrCs. Realistically a character wouldn't change focus back and forth 5 or more times in the short time period that a standard campaign runs for, let alone in an entire lifetime. Being a Saint or Half dragon is one thing. Being a Feral Dragonborn Incarnate Construct Warforged Mineral Warrior is another.

4) Excessive Sourcing. Most builds that involve the need of access to 4 splatbooks, 6 issues of DM, and 5 other books spread out over different campaign settings usually end up being pretty cheese.

Just so you know I'm not trying to define ways to search for Cheese or say anything against it for those that enjoy playing those types of characters. I'm just trying to define the tipping point between being optimized and being a Cheese character. Before I hear it from anyone (Since I've seen it said on some of the other threads I've read) don't make this into a RAW vs. RAI debate. Don't make this into a "The rules say I can so nothing is cheese" type debate either.

I'm just looking for honest opinions about the tipping point (regardless of character tier).

TL;DR version: The title, thoughts on the topic?

[Jarian]

When it affects your DM's ability to have the game proceed normally, pretty much. Like so many other things, it's subjective based on the game you're playing at any given point.

[SowZ]

Disagree a bit with the fourth one. Sometimes you have a particular idea in mind and pulling it off effectively requires a number of books. One might have the race, another a vital item/build option, a few more have various classes since you multiclass into a couple things and then take a PrC, etc. etc. all to make a build viable.

So I guess this spills over into the third one, as well. Excessive templating, yeah, slightly cheesy. But intense multiclassing PrCing? I am in the camp that thinks classes are mechanics and you use them to emulate the build you want and each class has fluff that fits it best but usually a class can be fluffed however. A multiclassed character is not necessarily any less focused or any less realistic in his skills, necessarily, than a single classed one since classes are just mechanics.

[ShippoWildheart]

When it takes longer than 6 seconds to explain how you optimized your character. :smallbiggrin:

[killianh]

@Jarian I couldn't agree more with you on that, but I find players referring to builds and ideas being cheesy even from just a TO perspective in which a DM isn't involved. If everyone is at that Cheesy level then it just become high Optimization that the DM will hopefully be able to take into account. Even so I'm hoping to find what is considered the point where a character becomes a bit to much even with that considered. I don't think there's many a DM that can handle Pun Pun without simply calling Divine intervention or homebrewed shenanigans.

@SowZ Multi book use is fine for finding items and the like, but when it comes to feats, PrCs, Variants, etc. I find that's how must cheese builds come to be. To pull of the build you want very rarely needs more than a few elements that you can usually pick out of (Core three not included) 3 books at most and a little role playing. After that it's optimizing it up to the point of cheese. If it needs those books for flavour or for a particular trick you have in mind then that's one thing. When they are all used to take something to its breaking point is when you find something cheesy (as is usually described in builds anyway). As for the characters switching focus a lot I find the same thinking applies. When they stop being a part of who the character is and start being a simple mechanic picked up out of the blue then you can find some cheese.

I'm not saying there's something inherently wrong with doing it, but I find that you very rarely find cheesy characters without it.

That said what kind of power level would you describe as cheesy (my views aside)?

[kardar233]

@SowZ Multi book use is fine for finding items and the like, but when it comes to feats, PrCs, Variants, etc. I find that's how must cheese builds come to be. To pull of the build you want very rarely needs more than a few elements that you can usually pick out of (Core three not included) 3 books at most and a little role playing. After that it's optimizing it up to the point of cheese. If it needs those books for flavour or for a particular trick you have in mind then that's one thing. When they are all used to take something to its breaking point is when you find something cheesy (as is usually described in builds anyway). As for the characters switching focus a lot I find the same thinking applies. When they stop being a part of who the character is and start being a simple mechanic picked up out of the blue then you can find some cheese.

Yeeeaah, I don't buy this. Using a multitude of sources just means you know a lot about the system, it doesn't denote that you're making a necessarily powerful build. A favourite Tier 4-5 build of mine goes through CWar, CChamp, CAdv, CScoun, DotU, MiniHB, two different web enhancements, DragComp, PGtF and Unearthed Arcana. It's not even that powerful. To use the overused but still true counterpoint, I can build a Wizard that can smash the game over his knee with just the PHB.

[Krazzman]

For me optimization is:

You have a goal and want to do it in the best possible way. For example optimization starts when you choose Warblade over Fighter. Or even mixing 10 classes to have a character that can do what you want like teleporting through the battlefield and killing enemies.

Optimization starts to be cheese when the other players are inferior to you. If YOU step on their toes because you suddenly are a melee though you are a mage.

Cheese is when there is a power discrepancy in the same roles for the players. (A rogue that outperform the fighter due to optimization).

[Empedocles]

The thing with multiple sourcebooks is that while using a bunch of sources doesn't make something cheesy by default, a lot of cheesy stuff does use a lot of resources. That's because WotC mostly thought about how their supplements interacted with the core rules, not with other supplements. Which sort of sucks, but oh well...

[killianh]

@ Kardar233 Anyone can say Wizard 20 or Druid 20 and I win, but I'm not talking about just straight power levels, I'm talking about the cheesiness of the build. I'm not trying to create a way of detecting the cheese (which there was an interesting thread on before) but rather define cheese, and most cheesy things (as per what most people on the playground call cheese) usually involves that element. The argument of Optimizing vs. game breaking isn't the point though; the point is defining what a cheesy build is. Thoughts on that topic?

@ Krazzman I agree with what you're saying on that, but I would have to add in that that fits more with being overpowered than being cheesy, which (from how I've seen cheesy build described on the forum) seem to be two separate things.

That said though we are getting somewhere in defining what's meant by a cheese build. Two of you don't think that the amount of sources used matters, and another two have given us a decent definition of Optimization and being OP.

[Madara]

It's the reason behind the power. If you have a specific concept, Let's say samurai, which you want to build and that class doesn't function well, you need to optimize. Cheese comes when you look for how to gain power, without a base concept in mind.

Optimization
Concept -> Power

Cheese
Power->more power


Cheese can be understood as that point in which the opposite happens. The samurai can no longer function in the party, not because of weakness, but because it gained 100 strength and somehow managed hulking hurler. So now, when the party archer shoots an arrow, the Samurai throws the moon and destroys the entire castle.

[sonofzeal]

1) Involves some sort of looping trick. Think of chain gating, or how Pun Pun gains infinite attributes. The infinite damage trick or the save game trick are another good few.
Definitelly agreed. Pretty much every loop trick is almost certainly going to be cheese.


2) Involves an obscure interpretation of the rules. Planar Sheppard was a pretty OP class, but when people started to interpret the planar bubble as capable of changing time flow for the party (which though not stated RAW there was no RAW against it) allowing 10 rounds of action to each 1 round of the enemies. Another is Incarnate Construct which works on all constructs, but (like above) has no ruling for or against it's use on living constructs like the warforged (though is obviously designed for something with no Con or mental scores)
Somewhat agreed. Some cheesy things are strictly RAW-legal, but many depend on excessively favourable interpretations, or obviously-abusive special cases. This won't catch every piece of cheese, and it'll catch many things that aren't cheese, but it's a useful step to check.


3) Excessive templates\PrCs. Realistically a character wouldn't change focus back and forth 5 or more times in the short time period that a standard campaign runs for, let alone in an entire lifetime. Being a Saint or Half dragon is one thing. Being a Feral Dragonborn Incarnate Construct Warforged Mineral Warrior is another.
Catagorically no. First, many PrCs have overlapping or similar focuses, so repeated PrCing in no way implies a schitzophrenic focus - and most PrC combinations that don't have a single defining element in common usually aren't that effective anyway. Same with most templates - it takes special circumstances for template layering to pay off over the high LA. Incarnate Construct on a Warforged is generally cheese all by itself, but a Feral Dragonborn Mineral Warrior Warforged, assuming it's legal, is merely optimized. Cheese is in the result, not in the number of templates or PrCs.


4) Excessive Sourcing. Most builds that involve the need of access to 4 splatbooks, 6 issues of DM, and 5 other books spread out over different campaign settings usually end up being pretty cheese.
Catagorically no. Once I had a fairly extensive library, and several search tools, using dozens of source books (especially for spellcasters) became relatively normal, and permits a wider range of customizability. Cheese is in the result, not in the sourcebook.

[DemonRoach]

When the character is optimized far above the other players. Arguably with responsible use its effect can be minimized, but even having the capability can be problematic.

My rough rule of thumb is if one character can end an entire encounter the other PC's would find a difficult prospect, that character has likely stepped to far up the power pyramid.

[Azernak0]

When it affects your DM's ability to have the game proceed normally, pretty much. Like so many other things, it's subjective based on the game you're playing at any given point.
This a bajillion times.

I can't even say splatbooks. A Wizard that just uses Spell Compendium and PH1 is going to be more 'cheesy' overall than a Rogue using a dozen books. It also comes down to attitude.

I have been far more willing to see a player do an incredibly powerful trick if he intends to do it as a method of making the other members better. A Bard optimizing Inspire Courage to make his teammates a better fighting force is less obnoxious than someone using the same trick and shouting "IWIN!"

[Telonius]

I'd add a couple:

5) Involves getting something for nothing, or you get a benefit extremely disproportionate to the cost incurred. This covers things like getting free wishes from Gated creatures, Dust of Sneezing and Choking (insta-win for 2400gp? Sign me up!)

6) Contains material that was fairly clearly intended for use by DMs, and not by players. Beholder Mage, I'm looking at you.

[Fineous Orlon]

I think a side point might be that cheese doesn't enter the equation [or shouldn't be applied as a label] as much when someone is trying something new with your group with a tier 4, 5, or 6 character, as long as they...

<snort>

I am leaving that 'as long as they...' part in, because that is how I thought it out. It revealed that, in fact, I believe one could be cheezy, even with a less effective base class.

I'm initially going to lean on context. If Player A uses a bunch [let's say, more than 5] of sources [books and Dragon Mags] in his first 10 levels, and no one else at the table does so, or can do so, and Player A cannot [for any of a multitude of reasons] or will not help others with his library or expertise, Player A is planting the cheddar flag.

I think Pun-Pun and infinite wish loops reveal another aspect of cheese: when a character DEPENDS [needs to get it more than once, or bases future character growth on having received said favor] on getting something 'above his CR' from something substantially more powerful than it is itself, that player is planting the cheddar flag. This could use a bit more polish, I expect it to be picked at....

I still would be more lenient on applying the cheese label to lower tier characters...

[sonofzeal]

5) Involves getting something for nothing, or you get a benefit extremely disproportionate to the cost incurred. This covers things like getting free wishes from Gated creatures, Dust of Sneezing and Choking (insta-win for 2400gp? Sign me up!)
Most of the popular variants of, or PrCs for, low-tier classes probably qualify here. And there's a fuzzy line between "this is a decent deal", "this is a great bargain", and "this is a disproportionate benefit". How do you suggest we draw the line?


6) Contains material that was fairly clearly intended for use by DMs, and not by players. Beholder Mage, I'm looking at you.
This one's hard to adjudicate. Are MM1 races "DM-intended"? What about the PrCs in the DMG? How do you suggest we draw the line?

[Killer Angel]

This one's hard to adjudicate. Are MM1 races "DM-intended"?

Some are intended to be playable, and they come with LA.

[ThiagoMartell]

When it affects your DM's ability to have the game proceed normally, pretty much. Like so many other things, it's subjective based on the game you're playing at any given point.

This, so much this.

[killianh]

Most of the popular variants of, or PrCs for, low-tier classes probably qualify here. And there's a fuzzy line between "this is a decent deal", "this is a great bargain", and "this is a disproportionate benefit". How do you suggest we draw the line?


This one's hard to adjudicate. Are MM1 races "DM-intended"? What about the PrCs in the DMG? How do you suggest we draw the line?

Line drawing is exactly what this post is about. Trying to find a generally acceptable line between Optimizing and being cheesy. Sometime even flat out breaking a character isn't cheesy (by use of the term in posts I've seen on the site). Leaving the question of what is?

I like the thinking of cheesy being something a DM can't handle, or something that makes you more powerful than other players in the party, but there is also some cheesy moves that aren't excessively broken either.

The template guy I mentioned in the OP would be an example. Another would be a Cleric (or other divine caster) taking a level in Warrior from UA (the generic class) to gain the bonus feat for turn undead to use Divine metamagic more. By RAW it doesn't say you cannot stack turn undead sources, but you've effective doubled the amount you can get. Not as broken as some other things, but cheesy.

As for points 3 and 4 I made I wasn't using those as definitive markers of chesse, just using them to highlight some of the building points of the main builds I've seen that have been called cheese.

I think a good point 7 would be anything that gives you power beyond your level. Think Bubs the commoner. For those that don't know Bubs he's a level 4 character capable of taming and riding a CR 16 Dinosaur called the Battletitan. This same commoner can raise Magical beasts like the CR 19 (CR 19 for crying out loud!) Chronotyryn. Thats cheese.

Now we're getting somewhere though. Now we're looking for a line. What comes just before that line of cheese, and what kind of thing are we looking at just after it?

[Talionis]

Title says it all. When would you guys say that optimization reaches the point where it's considered cheese? The way I see it there are a few key things that show up to really make a build cheesy

1) Involves some sort of looping trick.

2) Involves an obscure interpretation of the rules.

3) Excessive templates\PrCs.

4) Excessive Sourcing.

Fully agree on 1. Infinite Loops are cheese. They shouldn't exist at all and all DM's should find a way to limit a loop in some reasonable way.

Partially agree on 2. Obscure interpretation may just be house rules. Can they lead to cheese... Absolutely, but they don't have to. Many house rules make unplayable classes playable.

Disagree on 3. What I think you are trying to say is that they are optimizing to the point that the character makes no sense in roleplay. If that is the case maybe some of the Prestige Classes need to be refluffed to make everything make sense. Maybe the character is splitting time between two or three different mentors. But if the power level is equal to what other characters are doing and the game is working this isn't cheese. I do think a player should be required to come up with Fluff that makes the unusual templating make sense, but this has nothing to do with power level. Again often this makes an underpowered character powerful enough to hold his own with the rest of the party. Some of the most creative roleplay ideas I've seen have come from just this sort of strange templaiting.

Disagree on 4. Yes, this is a source of cheese, but again... This doesn't make something cheesie.

Mostly I think you need to define cheese. Generally, its where the power level of characters is higher than the other characters or their threats. If the power levels are not out of line, then the last thing I need as a DM is that the character make sense and be roleplayable.

As an aside, I have played campaigns and allowed cheese. But I always warn characters that using cheese may have unforeseen consequences. Often that leaves the cheese in the bag and it never actually gets used in game. Its like a parachute in a plane, how often do they get used? The player likes that they have found a super strong combo, but is afraid to show it off.

In situations like that I sometimes throw a much higher level threat at them to see what they do. If they use the cheese, I don't always do something right away, but I warn them that they don't feel right or that they can feel eyes watching them and have trouble sleeping. It makes for great campaign settings.

[sonofzeal]

Well, let's try to define cheese first. I think a colloquial definition might be "taking unfair advantage". However, that leaves us with the question of what "fair" advantage is.

A Phrenic Incarnate Construct Psiforged is cheesy. Incarnate Construct is cheesy when used that way. The character pays a minor cost and gets a massive benefit. However, there are other templates or constructs that are overpriced, and Incarnate Construct can be a clever workaround in those cases.

A variant that trades nothing of value and gives something of value is cheesy... unless it's on a weak class that needed the boost.





Really, I think cheese has to be considered in the context of the group. A "cheesy" element is any element (or synergy between multiple elements) that singlehandedly puts the character on a level above their peers.

In a low Op group, that could be as simple as Black Tentacles - the Wizard could cast nothing else, and still be dominating the rest of the party. If so, then in that context, Black Tentacles is at least a little bit cheesy.

By contrast, in a high Op group, shenanigans with Incarnate Construct Warforged may merely bring an otherwise weaker character back into line with their more powerful peers. In that context, Incarnate Construct Warforged isn't particularly cheesy, it's just a particularly effective optimization technique.

[Telonius]

Most of the popular variants of, or PrCs for, low-tier classes probably qualify here. And there's a fuzzy line between "this is a decent deal", "this is a great bargain", and "this is a disproportionate benefit". How do you suggest we draw the line?

The line isn't completely clear. But if the variants are allowed, then they're probably allowed as a fix or replacement for the original classes. If the DM wants to do that, then it's not cheesy in the context of that game. (I think we do have to assume a competent DM there, which I'll grant might not always be the case). Same way with PrCs. If a particular Prestige Class really is so good that basically every member of a class will want to take it as soon as they can, then it's not a Prestige Class. It's a revision of ten levels of the base class.

For "extremely disproportionate" ... again, it's a fuzzy line, and is probably going to be more group-determined than anything. For some groups, Binder/Hellfire Warlock is going to be seen as cheesy. For others, "regular Eldritch Blast damage" is seen as enough of a "penalty" that the benefit is judged proportionate.



This one's hard to adjudicate. Are MM1 races "DM-intended"? What about the PrCs in the DMG? How do you suggest we draw the line?

Killer Angel got to this one first - Monsters that have no level adjustments are intended for the DM. Prestige classes that apply only to monsters that don't have level adjustments are intended for the DM. Even if a player can somehow finagle technically qualifying for the prerequisites (being an Elan with Assume Supernatural Ability, PAO twice, Mind Switch, etc), it's pretty clearly over the cheese line.

[Talionis]

I like the thinking of cheesy being something a DM can't handle, or something that makes you more powerful than other players in the party, but there is also some cheesy moves that aren't excessively broken either.

The template guy I mentioned in the OP would be an example. Another would be a Cleric (or other divine caster) taking a level in Warrior from UA (the generic class) to gain the bonus feat for turn undead to use Divine metamagic more. By RAW it doesn't say you cannot stack turn undead sources, but you've effective doubled the amount you can get. Not as broken as some other things, but cheesy.

As for points 3 and 4 I made I wasn't using those as definitive markers of chesse, just using them to highlight some of the building points of the main builds I've seen that have been called cheese.

I think a good point 7 would be anything that gives you power beyond your level. Think Bubs the commoner. For those that don't know Bubs he's a level 4 character capable of taming and riding a CR 16 Dinosaur called the Battletitan. This same commoner can raise Magical beasts like the CR 19 (CR 19 for crying out loud!) Chronotyryn. Thats cheese.

Now we're getting somewhere though. Now we're looking for a line. What comes just before that line of cheese, and what kind of thing are we looking at just after it?

I think if you are looking for a line then what you said in bold is line enough: I like the thinking of cheesy being something a DM can't handle, or something that makes you more powerful than other players in the party.

Just stop there. The rest of your complaints really gets into roleplay issues.

I think DM's have to go out and put time in and make their players to time in to make their optimization make roleplay sense, but I think you can be really liberal with it if everyone is having fun. You should reward creativity not stifle it.

But I think you err if you put getting powers beyond a characters power level. Clerics are already really powerful characters so they might not need help, but if a Monk does something way above his power level, it might simply put him on par with the other characters in the party.

I don't think you can look at an individual character in a vacuum and decide its cheesie. You have to look at the campaign and party to decide.

Getting twice as many turn attempts might be cheese if you are using it for a ton of DMM. But if you are using it to activate Travel Devotion and your character wants to be able to use Travel Devotion as a major power it probably isn't that bad...

Its really hard to draw a line useful in all situations and your quote stopped early does about as good as someone can: I like the thinking of cheesy being something a DM can't handle, or something that makes you more powerful than other players in the party.

[sonofzeal]

Killer Angel got to this one first - Monsters that have no level adjustments are intended for the DM. Prestige classes that apply only to monsters that don't have level adjustments are intended for the DM. Even if a player can somehow finagle technically qualifying for the prerequisites (being an Elan with Assume Supernatural Ability, PAO twice, Mind Switch, etc), it's pretty clearly over the cheese line.
But then there's still ambiguous cases like the "Soul Eater" PrC. It seems evident to me that it was intended for DM use on BBEGs, but there's also plenty of ways a PC could qualify for it without excessive finagling. There's always a continuum there.

[Killer Angel]

BTW, what's the origin of the term "cheese", used in game context?

[Talya]

I like the thinking of cheesy being something a DM can't handle, or something that makes you more powerful than other players in the party, but there is also some cheesy moves that aren't excessively broken either.




Problem with this:

Is playing a PHB druid, cleric, or wizard inherently cheesy because you have two guys that insist on playing fighter and monk?

I know people who will say yes. But then, by that same token, playing a sorcerer, bard, ranger, or rogue will also make them more powerful than that fighter or monk.


This is always going to be subjective. Two of my favorite people to game with consider TOB cheese. I disagree strongly, but this is because they consider Wuxia-in-D&D to feel cheesy to start with (nevermind that Warblade has no supernatural seeming elements at all.) Cheese is ultimately going to be determined by the comfort level of the people you are gaming with.

[Roguenewb]

I believe it's "that's pretty cheesy", like a bad movie.

On the bigger question: I think cheese is when you hit the point where a character can easily resolve all encounters of an equal CR without any significant risk to themselves. For strong example, Pun-Pun can destroy all CR 1 encounters, literally without any risk at all. But on a more even threat level, The Twice Betrayer cannot really be challenged by level appropriate foes.

[Roguenewb]

I believe it's "that's pretty cheesy", like a bad movie.

On the bigger question: I think cheese is when you hit the point where a character can easily resolve all encounters of an equal CR without any significant risk to themselves. For strong example, Pun-Pun can destroy all CR 1 encounters, literally without any risk at all. But on a more even threat level, The Twice Betrayer cannot really be challenged by level appropriate foes.

[Duke of URL]

Short version: Optimization is making your character good at what he or she does. Cheese is making your character have an "I win" button it can use to get out of any possible situation.

High-op is not cheese if the whole table (including the DM) is doing it, it can be considered cheese in a lower optimization game if you're doing it to "break" the game, however.

[Novawurmson]

It's the reason behind the power...

Optimization
Concept -> Power

Cheese
Power->more power

This, 100%. If you say "I want to play a sneaky thief who stabs people in the back!" and proceed to multiclass, take feats, choose skills, and PrC into abilities that make you better at being a sneaky thief, that's optimization; the point is to make your character concept fit your stats.

If you say, "I want to be able to kill people before they even see me LOL" and then make a build that can do so regarless of any kind of character concept, that's cheese.

[Big Fau]

For me, it's when you start up an arms race with the other players instead of trying to help them out.

[TroubleBrewing]

When it affects your DM's ability to have the game proceed normally, pretty much. Like so many other things, it's subjective based on the game you're playing at any given point.

Like so many others have agreed, this pretty much nailed it on the head.

Attempting to define what is and is not 'cheese' is stepping dangerously close to the line of saying 'my way of playing is more valid or correct than yours'. Jarian's response gives a definition of the term that doesn't include that sentiment.

[AugustusGloop]

Cheese begins when you ask yourself "Am I having fun with my character?" without following up with "Is everyone else having fun with my character?"

[Titomancer]

Lurking here for a while, thought I'd jump in here, as this conversation has come up in our actual gaming group (one or two members are high-op people, and the rest of us are concept over mechanics guys). My thoughts are simple...anytime RAW is taken over RAI, it's cheesy. Again, had this argument in our actual gaming group, and it comes down to exploiting the language of the books, because they're not there to defend themselves. Exploiting poor wording is cheesy. For good or bad, it's cheesy. Not all cheese is bad, either. But it -is- cheese. Sometimes cheese is good. Most of the time, it's bad. It's all about intent. If you're doing cheese to dominate your game, that's stinky foot cheese. If you're doing cheese to help the guy who's playing something really sub-par, and making it into something that's more in line with what he wanted to play, concept-wise, that's tasty good cheese.
So, to conclude:
When RAW > RAI = Cheese
Cheese is not always bad. It's all in the intent. There's nothing cheesy about playing a Druid, but when you play a druid just because everyone else is playing tier 5's and you want to dominate? You're being a jerk.
Just my thoughts.

[D@rK-SePHiRoTH-]

Cheese is whenever the power-up you are obtaining is either:
-unneeded
or
-unjustified

For example, in a standard low OP 3.5 campaign, with a sword & board fighter, a healbot cleric and a blaster wizard,
I do not need punce and leap attack on my barbarian

If I do not need it, it is cheese.

[Quellian-dyrae]

For me, the main standouts are:

1) Infinite loops or arbitrary numbers of any kind.

2) Making an otherwise limited resource unlimited, or circumventing the costs to use a certain spell or ability. This isn't always bad for the game, necessarily, but in the general sense I'd ping it as cheese.

3) Gaining access to spells (or similar leveled effects) of higher level than a character of your level should be able to use (so, 6th level spells before 11th level, for example).*

4) Gaining access to the capabilities of a monster with a CR higher than your ECL. This includes becoming such a creature, or summoning it.*

5) Bringing into battle a total EL worth of NPCs greater than your own ECL.*

6) Any offensive action that denies some sort of natural check to prevent (an attack, saving throw, or skill check, generally).

7) Sufficient action-economy shenanigans. I'm not quite sure where my limit would be here, but I'm leaning towards more than two major offensive actions (spells, charge, full attack, martial strike, etc) that are capable of affecting the same target, in one round.

*These assume fairly reliable access, that is, can be done on a day-to-day or encounter-to-encounter basis. If it's the sort of thing that can only be done in special circumstances or a strictly limited number of times, it might not qualify.

[dspeyer]

Cheese isn't quite the same as overpowered.

Cheese is using rules in ways that, if you went back in time and told the author of the rule about them, he would rephrase to stop you.

[robertbevan]

Cheese isn't quite the same as overpowered.

Cheese is using rules in ways that, if you went back in time and told the author of the rule about them, he would rephrase to stop you.

i like that.

[Little Brother]

1) Cheese is any build, combo, action, etc that violates the "Do not be a ****" rule.

[SaintRidley]

1) Cheese is any build, combo, action, etc that violates the "Do not be a ****" rule.

A worthy sentiment but ultimately useless as a metric, as each table has their own line on where optimization ends and richardness begins.

Take, for example, early-entry spellcasting tricks. Getting access to spells of a higher level than otherwise indicated by your base spellcasting class's table falls somewhere between gouda and limberger on some cheese charts while others think of it as more along the lines of Kraft's synthetic, individually wrapped slices of "not quite cheese but it works for a sandwich" and perfectly acceptable.

[Little Brother]

A worthy sentiment but ultimately useless as a metric, as each table has their own line on where optimization ends and richardness begins.

Take, for example, early-entry spellcasting tricks. Getting access to spells of a higher level than otherwise indicated by your base spellcasting class's table falls somewhere between gouda and limberger on some cheese charts while others think of it as more along the lines of Kraft's synthetic, individually wrapped slices of "not quite cheese but it works for a sandwich" and perfectly acceptable.That is exactly my point. Cheesiness is entirely perspective. Thus, the Richard Rule is the only rule that really works well in all circumstances. Others will get a lot of false pings, or a bunch of false negatives.

[SaintRidley]

That is exactly my point. Cheesiness is entirely perspective. Thus, the Richard Rule is the only rule that really works well in all circumstances. Others will get a lot of false pings, or a bunch of false negatives.

True, though the differing standards on the Richard Rule do make it difficult to discuss in a productive way.

Fundamental agreement on the overall point, though.

Mostly I just wanted to find an excuse to say "not quite cheese but good enough for a sandwich" in this thread.

[Bloodhands]

You shouldn't really be an objectivist about cheese; it's all about the balance at the table you're at. If the other PCs are all being useful in the game and the DM has planned effectively for the power level of the characters and manages to make the game fun, then uberchargers et al are just fine. If it breaks the game and/or makes things no fun for the other people involved, then it's going too far for that game.

[Talya]

You shouldn't really be an objectivist

Based on Atlas Shrugged, I'd agree with you. But Brad Bird made much more compelling arguments in The Incredibles, so I'm not sure.

[erikun]

The problem with cheese is that it's a scale; anything above what is generally considered "standard" would be included in cheesing a character. The problem with D&D3 is that there is no one "standard" power level, and so you can't universally declare such-and-such to be cheese. In a game consisting primarily of pre-generated characters, even a moderate amount of optimization would be cheese. On the other hand, in the Trippyverse, your Cleric whose only trick is DMM Persist Divine Power might as well be hanging out with the Commoners, for all the effect he has.

That said, there are some options that are clearly not cheese.


Using multiple sourcebooks isn't cheese. Maybe in another game, where single sourcebooks tend to be a good supply of options and someone diving through several different ones are looking highly different and possibly conflicting character choices. D&D3 sourcebooks, by contrast, are always a scattershot of options. You will frequently find both good and irrelevant options, and you'll find reasonably (or even underpowered) thematic options scattered throughout multiple books. "Fighting well with a shield" could easily take you through 5 books just for feats. Heck, there are base classes and prestige classes which require three or four books just to use!

Multiclassing isn't cheese. Even using the classes-as-jobs line of thought, that doesn't make multiclassing (even heavy multiclassing) very cheesy. A character who has taken levels in Barbarian, Fighter, Rogue, Sorcerer, and one or two prestige classes isn't necessarily going to be any better than a straight Barbarian or Rogue (to say nothing about Sorcerer). Heck, what about thematic multiclassing, such as Illusionist/Master Illusionist/Shadowcraft Mage/Shadowdancer 1? Would you say that is was a perfectly acceptable build, except that one Shadowdancer level at the end turning everything into liquid Velveeta? :smalltongue:

[CIDE]

It's the reason behind the power. If you have a specific concept, Let's say samurai, which you want to build and that class doesn't function well, you need to optimize. Cheese comes when you look for how to gain power, without a base concept in mind.

Optimization
Concept -> Power

Cheese
Power->more power


Cheese can be understood as that point in which the opposite happens. The samurai can no longer function in the party, not because of weakness, but because it gained 100 strength and somehow managed hulking hurler. So now, when the party archer shoots an arrow, the Samurai throws the moon and destroys the entire castle.


Agreed. Completely

[Greyfeld85]

I see cheese as the intentional use of a feature for an unintended purpose. Getting around limitations and requirements by taking an arguable translation or ignoring RAI altogether.

Unfortunately, my definition of cheese is rather broad, and allows for variance of opinion, based on different views of RAI.

[killianh]

So far from what I've seen the general agreed on points of something being cheesy is:

Infinite anything.

loophole abuse in the rules

Powerful to a point of the DM not being able to compensate between you and other players (like a group of levels 5s playing with a level 15)

excessive early power access (A wizard getting 9th level spells a level ahead of sorcerer isn't too bad. A Elven domain generalist being able to get them at level 1? goat cheese)

and build that don't make sense simply to gain more power.

From the looks of it there seems to be a general view on cheese that most agree with, now it seems we just need something we can all agree on.

[Mithril Leaf]

I think that any point wherein it isn't possible for a DM to compensate for the increased power without screwing someone over is a fairly agreeable definition of cheese.

[137beth]

@above: I agree, it encompasses the other aspects of the game you are playing:
How tricky can the DM be to compensate, and how optimized are the other players. It's just missing the part about not annoying everyone else...

[Cor1]

What's the link between "cheese" and "annoying", or with "optimized", or "reduces enjoyability"?

I thought cheese meant "this build stinks", as like that combo that takes one level of each class it takes, that popped up once in the Iron Chef challenge. (And even then, that one was more of an interesting concept.)

I think cheese is mainly when you have things that make no sense, in-game and/or in-rules. But I allow for a LOT of things to make sense in d&d. Overlapping Afinity Fields to bounce Bestow Power infinity times between Psionics to insta-recharge them sort of makes sense, it's simply free energy. Not possible? Guys, d&d has WISH. Or, more relatedly : Self-resetting Traps of Fabricate (things).
Conversely, A Voidmind War-Troll Half-Dragon Zombie Lycanthrope is cheesy, because it has to be explained from the ground up. WizardsDidIt, yeah, that's enough to justify Owlbears (two words : drunk druid), but a pile of templates stacked that carefully, that's a full adventure, not just a monster entry.

Or it's just ... cheese.

A Monk who discovers the power of the mind before wasting his life can abandon the monastery at level 2 and go become a Tashalatora PsyWar Slayer... Oh, you know the Lords Of Smack already.

That's becoming efficient at being a mobile, somewhat-magic melee combatant that hits a lot with bare hands (kinda). Also, being an insect is a fun roleplay opportunity.

Now say there's an Elf, a Thri-Kreen, and a Human. The Elf is an EZ Bake Generalist, the Thri-kreen is a Monk to begin with and the Human is a DMM Persist Cloistered Cleric.

With their base races and without multiclassing, the wizard and Cleric can GODmode their way through anything that wouldn't roflstomp the Monk outright, even though he's somewhat cheesy to begin with (exotic race with useful bonus feat and psionics). But if it goes for Tashalatora PsyWar and then Lord Of Smack, yeah, it can keep up in usefulness, simply by virtue of having PC level resources mostly spent at being a better meleer than those who'd better spend spells to GODmode the landscape and buff the party, respectively, than CasterZilla'ing the encounters.

Now if those characters are played for team benefit, then they're making a movie where the star is the Monk, the director is the Wizard, and the producer is the Cleric. I have pictures in my head of the Form Of Doom'ed Thri-Kreen charging through a surreal landscape transformed by the Wizard, with the Cleric in Visage of the Deity buffing them from above.

Conversely, the Thri-kreen could conceivably roflstomp in combat anything that has stats, even quest-critical NPCs, the Cleric can solo everything because ClericZilla, also turn whole towns against the other characters, and the Wizard is, well, a Wizard, and can make the others' lives hellish (with actual demons if necessary).

I mean, if the Wizard is a Blaster, and the Thri-Kreen/Monk/Psywar tries to fill his role, and the Cleric obstinately refuses to go beyond healbotting, then you've got a problem too : two characters are arms-racing Initiative and DPR, you've got (somewhat) squishy characters that take more damage than they can keep up with, and no one to solve problems not combat-related. To say nothing of the option of having the Monk stay a Monk, is which case he's irrelevant even if the casters are doing it wrong the unoptimal way.

Annoyance depends more on the player than on the build.

But cheese is pretty build-dependent. It may not be entirely objective, but it's characterized by things being together that make no sense being together without needing long explanations.

The Thri-Kreen Monk Tashalatora PsyWar somewhat makes sense. It's all about combat and psionics.

But then you can cheese it up, by taking Hidden Talent at first class level (what? It's legal), two levels of PsyWar, with Psicrystal Affinity, put psionic feats in the psicrystal, after Hidden Talent to qualify for them, get the Mantled Warrior ACF to get the Consumption Mantle so that you can Feat Leech the psionic feats you'll put in your Psicrystal that qualifies for them by Hidden Talent, then take two actual levels of Ardent to get three more mantles, and oh yeah there is that rule they forgot to edit out of Overchannel from 3.0, that says your manifester level is equal to your total levels in manifesting classes, so you can take higher-level Ardent powers because they forgot to limit what level of powers an Ardent may learn at each level. Now take the Magic Mantle, and you can suddenly use magic items like a Rogue. And also psionic items, including those with the really good powers. So you will somewhat keep up with the full casters.

But THAT's cheese. Not in the sense of "it makes no sense being together", but in the sense of "it takes nuances of RAW to suddenly become much better".
It's also efficient. It's one bought service away from being completely broken, too, but then that's entering gentlemen's agreement... "Okay, so there are enough people in this town that I can buy a Candle of Invocation." About THAT broken, but no-one does it...

There can be cheese that is not efficient. Saint Half-Dragon Aasimar Monk/Paladin with VoP. That's cheesy, too, but it would suck so much... "An envoy of Bahamut who will fulfill some important prophecy", it's a classic idea. But it wouldn't work, at all.

The limit of cheese itself is a sliding scale, as always. The limit of optimization also is one. The patience of a group to put up with the other players is one, too. They're pretty much all independent of each other.

[jaybird]

When it's more then the rest of your group can handle.

[Terazul]

Catagorically no. First, many PrCs have overlapping or similar focuses, so repeated PrCing in no way implies a schitzophrenic focus - and most PrC combinations that don't have a single defining element in common usually aren't that effective anyway. Same with most templates - it takes special circumstances for template layering to pay off over the high LA. Incarnate Construct on a Warforged is generally cheese all by itself, but a Feral Dragonborn Mineral Warrior Warforged, assuming it's legal, is merely optimized. Cheese is in the result, not in the number of templates or PrCs.

Catagorically no. Once I had a fairly extensive library, and several search tools, using dozens of source books (especially for spellcasters) became relatively normal, and permits a wider range of customizability. Cheese is in the result, not in the sourcebook.

Yeah, basically this. I mean, look at the classic Sorcadin gish: Paladin 2/Sorcerer 3/Spellsword 1/Abjurant Champion 5/Sacred Exorcist 8. That's 2 base classes and 3 prestige classes across the PHB, two completes, and a supplement, before getting into wacky feats and variants, and it's a pretty basic "hit stuff and cast spells" build. Spellsword beyond 1 isn't really worthwhile, but evens out BAB and casting before jumping into AC. There's plenty of other class examples like this where 1 or 2 levels provides useful things to a concept but not much past that is detrimental. S'bound to happen in a system with so many classes.

Beyond Incarnate Construct shenanigans, I really haven't seen too many instances of template stacking beyond like LA+2 that don't actually inhibit more than they help. Generally I only view things as cheesy if they require a reaaaaally liberal reading of the rules to get the desired result. Otherwise, it just tends to be optimized, which may or may not be above the desired level for your group. But just because you're good at combining feats and features doesn't make something "cheesy".

[ShippoWildheart]

Looking back, I think the to-go definition of cheese is if you are able to make actions so absurd it makes the DM go speechless for a long period of time to try to process that action before finally going, "...what."


Cheese isn't quite the same as overpowered.

Cheese is using rules in ways that, if you went back in time and told the author of the rule about them, he would rephrase to stop you.

Okay, this is genius. Permission to sig this?

[Lord.Sorasen]

When it affects your DM's ability to have the game proceed normally, pretty much. Like so many other things, it's subjective based on the game you're playing at any given point.

I honestly feel like this is the only real truth about cheese and I'm really confused as to why I never realized it was that simple, really.

Cheese is different to everyone. To some people cheese is power. But to others, cheese is power only at the expense of character concept. To some people certain character concepts are by definition cheesy.

I will never forget when someone told me a build I'd been working on was munchkinny, because it involved multiple sourcebooks (one being online) and dealt with doing all sorts of electricity things. Really I just wanted to be Static Shock, I'll be honest.

I think, personally, I don't think of D&D as a game where character power beyond obvious level difference is that important (not to knock on people who build very powerful builds. I've had a lot of fun with that sort of thing as well). I've always thought of D&D as collaborative storytelling, where the strength of the individual isn't generally noticed, let alone cared about. So in my mind it's cheesy if it makes it difficult to see this goal to its end.

With that in mind, I suppose what I would argue is that optimization is too cheesy when it interferes with the spirit of the game, where the game is not D&D or whatever is being played but rather, subject to the group's agreement.