When does a solution become too "cheap"?

[A.A.King]

With a lot of character requests you will see "no cheese", which makes a lot of sense. Cheesy tricks will either be blocked by the DM or they take the fun out of the self-imposed challenge of wanting to build an X-like character (fill in the X yourself). Sometimes there is some kind of discussion about whether or not Y is considered cheesy (once again, Y is a variable you can fill in for yourself), but I believe that overall the concept of "cheese" is a universal thing and most people will consider the same things cheesy. But what about "cheap"? With "cheap" I mean some kind of trick which you feel just isn't right for your self-imposed challenge, more for personal or artistic reasons that for pragmatic reasons. You ignore the trick not because any sane DM would throw it out or because your party in general plays a much lower-op game but because it's not what you want (even though to an outsider it might seem like the perfect awns er to your particular problem)

An example for me is the Duskblade class. I consider it a too easy solution when it comes to playing a Gish. I prefer mixing base classes instead of the Gish-in-a-Can. I even ignore the class when current character concept would probably be better served with it.

So what do you consider too cheap or too easy and why? Which things do you systematically avoid even when you know it's the answer to your problem?

[Kazudo]

Well, I typically don't shy away from using the resources at my disposal with the DM's blessing. However, depending on the challenge, there are a few things I inevitably stop wanting to do.

The biggest one is a Template Layering Shenanigans that we've referred to as Jonah the Unlucky in a few games it's been pulled out in.

Long story short you take an Anthropomorphic Baleen Whale and layer on the Dustform Creature and Incarnate Construct templates a few dozen times until the character's STR and CHA are what you want it to be. Then, due to some type shuffling shenanigans, you layer on the Primordial Giant template which grants invisibility at will as an SLA. Then, you run through Necropolitan, using the Corpsecrafted feats and the spellstitched template. After that, you run through Evolved Undead twice and suddenly for (something like) 3 LA, a lost level, and 3 HD you've got a pretty devastating creature. Buy off the LA and you're pretty much ruining the group.

On a lesser note, I'll avoid using flaws if at all possible unless there's something I really need done fast. Things like the TWF tree usually warrant this, but in any other circumstances I really do try to avoid flaws unless the rest of the group is doing it.

[torrasque666]

Using magic based classes when I'm trying to build a martial character. I know they give good buffs but I don't have time to read through all the spells available and decide what will work to improve this idea. I'm also aware that they are pretty much needed to stand a fighting chance at later levels, but for some reason the magic classes just rub me the wrong way.

[Red Fel]

So what do you consider too cheap or too easy and why? Which things do you systematically avoid even when you know it's the answer to your problem?

Short version: If the DM disallows it, it's too cheesy for that table. Even if it's perfectly legitimate (e.g. Psionics, ToB, Incarnum). I may not agree with the DM, but if I'm playing at his table I'm playing by his rules.

That said, there are a few things that are too cheesy even for me. These include: Template layering. Much (but not all) Dragon Magazine content. Pun-Pun. Dark Chaos Shuffle. Using Bloodlines, Legacy Champion or Uncanny Trickster to extend a PrC beyond the levels indicated in the book. Anything that requires an overly-technical reading of RAW.
The lattermost is a bit of a gray area. Generally, if I would have to argue either about the definition of a particular word in the language, or if I would say at any point "It doesn't say I can't," it's too cheesy for me.

[Kazudo]

Oh, and Ur-Priest theurges. It's great, sure, being able to cast 9th level Wizard and Cleric spells, but it's tough being the one-stop-shop among a group of fighters. Being called "HEY HEAL BATTERY" or "YO BLASTY BLASTY" gets old.

[A.A.King]

I'm not really talking about the extremely cheesy things like "Pun-Pun". I'm talking about situations were you refuse to consider an otherwise perfectly reasonable thing because it's too easy. Another example is using "Blindfold of True Darkness" when you try to make a blind character. If you decide to make your character blind then you are gonna have to build around that fact, select feats and classes which demonstrate that the character has learned to somewhat live it. So using a single item to make it an almost non-problem is something I would consider cheap.

I'm sure we all have some character concepts which we ourselves made needlessly complicated because we avoided the "cheap" solution. The solution which wasn't in the spirit of it. You might even have had to drop the entire concept because you couldn't find the right not-cheap solution.

[OldTrees1]

Using a caster to imitate a non caster ability. Especially for a non caster character concept.
Using a flaw without a meaningful impact.
Damage obsession.

[pwykersotz]

It's cheap if it trivializes something that is meant to be an actual challenge. This definition varies from character to character and from DM to DM, often based on the situation.

It's cheap if the DM designs a traveling adventure and the Wizard prepares Teleport.
It's cheap if you build a blind character for a free feat, then pay for a regenerate immediately.
It's cheap if you know a weakness for a creature OOC and exploit that knowledge in character.

The intention of these situations is to explore the challenge and it gets passed over without doing just that. Thus, it's a cheap trick. Again though, this is generally based on subjective expectations, which is why some people find a trick cheap and others don't.

[Kazudo]

Using a flaw without a meaningful impact.


That one actually. Taking Shaky for a melee character or noncombatant for a caster.

[Amphetryon]

If it detracts from the fun of one or more Player at your table, it's probably cheap or otherwise inappropriate.

[BWR]

I suppose I can differentiate between cheese and 'stuff I just don't like' or stuff that's too powerful. Cheese would be things which are technically legal but are ridiculous and obviously not the way the game was intended to work. Resetting traps used as means of production is a perfect example of cheese. Using them as clothing...
Paragon Surge from Pathfinder is another, anything involving tricks to get infinite whatever, really.

[jjcrpntr]

When I'm playing "too cheap" is a preference thing. Like the ToB ability "time stands still" it's a sweet ability but there's something about swinging like 18 times (twf) that just seems cheap to me. I also avoid anything that can end an encounter in one or two moves. As a DM i tend to either ban or request players not to use these things.

My logic is if the DM/or myself if I'm dming, is putting in the effort to create an interesting encounter the players should at least engage int he encounter. That and I don't see the fun in saying "oh look, a bunch of creatures... I cast summon black hole, so now that those are gone what's next?"

[ericgrau]

Well cheap and cheese tend to overlap a lot. I don't like to use anything that's too good compared to the people I play with. Especially the newer people.

I suppose one thing that's mostly cheap is that I try to avoid falling back on the same concept twice because I know it well. Sometimes I do, but I don't like it and even then I try to change it up a bit.

[A.A.King]

That one actually. Taking Shaky for a melee character or noncombatant for a caster.

I only find this cheap depending upon the overall character, I don't think it's always wrong. In general it's cheap if you do it just to add power, but if you do it to make an already horrible concept a bit more feasible then I find it okay. I think that's just the problem with flaws in general. From the player's perspective it might very well seem like taking a penalty which doesn't affect you to further increase your already incredible melee powers. But from the character's perspective I always think, why would someone who knows he is bad at range combat focus on range combat? It can still be a character defining aspect even if it has little negative effect. The Weapon Finesse Rogue with shaky would have been an archer had he not suffered from shaky.

So yeah, flaws are only cheap if they add more power when you really don't need it. As long as you can have the flaw still be essential to the character story wise then I don't mind it as a trick to save an otherwise failing concept.

[torrasque666]

I was about to say. Yes, sometimes taking a flaw just for an extra feat is just cheap. But if you can justify it storywise more power to you. Like a sniper build I built last week. He had two, noncombatant and frail. Why? Because as a sniper, he really isn't much of a combatant, if anything he is more likely to run/climb away from a melee encounter. And part of it is due to being so frail and fragile.

[Lord Haart]

Magic shurikens are definitely underpriced.





That said, cheap solutions are okay-ish for me when i desperately need to optimise an otherwise inept and resourse-eating build back to competency (which happens quite often, for i focus on having all the abilities i need for flavour first and as a consequence, sometimes have to work with a str 5, dex 9, con 7 character that has to perform adequately in melee combat without spending class levels or using more than one or two feats on melee optimisation). I judge by what's the actual character capable of relative to the game's desired optimisation level and the group's standart, not by how cheesy "in general" are the means i utilise for that end, though i don't resort to cheese when i have other satisfactory options.

[Arael666]

Qualifiying for CL or ML prerequisites by bumping you CL/ML with items/spell's/feats. To me it's not only cheap, it's immoral.

[HammeredWharf]

It depends on the overall power of my build. If I'm building a Monk or a Truenamer, everything goes. Impactless flaws, item familiars, Incarnate Constructs, Unseelie Fey, etc. If I'm building a Wizard, I tend to restrict myself to options that would make that character more flavorful or otherwise different instead of strictly more powerful.

[Dread_Head]

I find Cloistered Cleric dips the cheapest thing on most builds. Knowledge Devotion, Turn Undead and two further Devotion feats or domain powers plus the ability to use wands and scrolls of anything on the cleric list is just too useful for pretty much all builds that it feels cheap to always use it.

[WhamBamSam]

I allow most Dragon/True Dragon cheese for Dragonwrought Kobolds, but ban/refuse to use a few problem items from kobold use. Loredrake, Spellhoarding, Riddled, and Epic Toughness are obviously overpowered on a LA+0, but more in line with what this thread is the standard Wyrm of War (Bonus Figher feat or combat feat tied to draconic abilities every 4HD). It's a little broken, but no more so than some things I do allow. I just don't like it because it sets optimization on easy mode, and negates one of the primary weaknesses of Dragonwrought.