Why is the Dark Chaos Shuffle considered cheese/TO?

[sorcererlover]

There is no creative interpretations or use of the two spells. It's very straightforward and used as intended. Using the two spells to change out your feats is RAI and RAW.

Shun the Dark Chaos is intentionally used to purify an "evil" PC who has chosen an abyssal heritor feat.
Embrace the Dark Chaos is intentionally used to corrupt a PC by changing out a feat for an abyssal heritor feat.
Seeing how they were very detailed in the spell description about gaining/losing stuff, they intentionally made it so you can swap out an abyssal heritor feat to a new feat instead of the old feat it replaced.

The only problem I came across is people claiming racial proficiencies are "feats", which is completely incorrect. It's not RAI, it's not even RAW because proficiencies and racial traits are not feats.

Is it because of these people that people consider DCSF TO and cheese? Because I really don't see any problem with spending 500xp when you gain access to 8th level spells to change out a feat that isn't a prerequisite of another feat or PrC.

[Pippin]

It's cheesy because Heroism ^o^

[lord_khaine]

Is it because of these people that people consider DCSF TO and cheese? Because I really don't see any problem with spending 500xp when you gain access to 8th level spells to change out a feat that isn't a prerequisite of another feat or PrC.

Its certainly because of that, and likely other ways to cheat with the amount of feats you have.

Psionic reformation does the same cheaper, allowing you to repick a feat, as a level 4 power. And almost noone mentiones that.

[Shadowquad]

The only problem I came across is people claiming racial proficiencies are "feats", which is completely incorrect. It's not RAI, it's not even RAW because proficiencies and racial traits are not feats.

This is debatable. While it has been corrected in the d20srd, here follows an extract of the "elf" entry in the 3.5 PHB :



Weapon Proficiency: Elves receive the Martial Weapon Proficiency feats for the longsword, rapier, longbow (including composite longbow), and shortbow including composite shortbow) as bonus feats.


The RAW interpretation of this text is that elves gain 6 (or 4 ?) Martial Weapon Proficiency feats at 1st level, which is why DCFS is considered TO as far as I know. It is also debatable that feats gained by temporary means (such as heroism) can be shuffled and made permanent.

[Tvtyrant]

There is no creative interpretations or use of the two spells. It's very straightforward and used as intended. Using the two spells to change out your feats is RAI and RAW.

Shun the Dark Chaos is intentionally used to purify an "evil" PC who has chosen an abyssal heritor feat.
Embrace the Dark Chaos is intentionally used to corrupt a PC by changing out a feat for an abyssal heritor feat.
Seeing how they were very detailed in the spell description about gaining/losing stuff, they intentionally made it so you can swap out an abyssal heritor feat to a new feat instead of the old feat it replaced.

The only problem I came across is people claiming racial proficiencies are "feats", which is completely incorrect. It's not RAI, it's not even RAW because proficiencies and racial traits are not feats.

Is it because of these people that people consider DCSF TO and cheese? Because I really don't see any problem with spending 500xp when you gain access to 8th level spells to change out a feat that isn't a prerequisite of another feat or PrC.

Because it allows you to bypass one of the fundamental resource limiters in the game, how many feats you have. If a player asked you to simply allow them 5-100 extra feats how would you respond?

[remetagross]

On the other hand, DFCS might grant you, say, 5 extra feats in case you have a bunch of crappy feats to swap (like Ranger 3 that gives Track and Endurance), but that won't go much higher than that. Besides, I wouldn't mind a Ranger paying 1000 exp and gaining a small buff when attaining ECL 15.

[RoboEmperor]

Psionic reformation does the same cheaper, allowing you to repick a feat, as a level 4 power. And almost noone mentiones that.

Psionic Reformation is only cheaper until 10 levels behind. For feats chosen at low levels it's cheaper to do the DCFS.

That and the fact that a lot of DMs don't allow psionics in their games because they don't think it's fantasy.

[Florian]

There is no creative interpretations

Oh, there is and it´s possibly the fault of the early online/character generation tools. Question is how to handle basic race and class proficiencies and whether those should be modeled as feats or not, which in turn will affect how the Shuffle works.

[RoboEmperor]

I think if they limited it to feats you gained during level up there wouldn't be a problem.

But like others have said there are a lot of classes that explicitly give FEATS, and that elf quote above clearly shows being an elf gives you extra FEATS to shuffle out.

So that's why it's TO. Not because you can rebuild your character, but because you gain a **** ton of extra feats.

Now a RAI DM will probably let you use it if you only use it on feats acquired during level up.

[Cosi]

The shuffle itself is not TO. The fact that there are other elements you can use with the shuffle for infinite feats is what makes it TO.

Also "it is unambiguous RAW" is not a strong argument for something not being cheese. planar binding loops are unambiguously RAW, but also definitely cheese.

[Segev]

Arguing RAI is always risky, but I would venture that the two spells were not intended for use together. Somebody may have realized it could be done and published them anyway, but they're both meant, by the in-setting designers of them, to be one-way.

You're supposed to be giving in to temptation when you embrace the dark chaos and corrupt a "lesser" feat for the power granted by the Abyss. (Ignore for the moment that Abyssal feats aren't really that great.)

You're supposed to be gaining absolution for sins or for the sins of your bloodline when you shun the dark chaos and purify a wicked feat and gain a blessing of a new, cleaner one in its place.

While a corruption/redemption cycle narrative is possible, the intent in a narrative sense is that these spells enable specific kinds of fall/redemption stories, and likely not on the same character. That they are most useful cast in relatively quick succession on somebody willing to accept both is definitely not the intent, or the spells would have just been a spell that lets you swap any feat for any feat.

[RoboEmperor]

Arguing RAI is always risky, but I would venture that the two spells were not intended for use together. Somebody may have realized it could be done and published them anyway, but they're both meant, by the in-setting designers of them, to be one-way.

You're supposed to be giving in to temptation when you embrace the dark chaos and corrupt a "lesser" feat for the power granted by the Abyss. (Ignore for the moment that Abyssal feats aren't really that great.)

You're supposed to be gaining absolution for sins or for the sins of your bloodline when you shun the dark chaos and purify a wicked feat and gain a blessing of a new, cleaner one in its place.

While a corruption/redemption cycle narrative is possible, the intent in a narrative sense is that these spells enable specific kinds of fall/redemption stories, and likely not on the same character. That they are most useful cast in relatively quick succession on somebody willing to accept both is definitely not the intent, or the spells would have just been a spell that lets you swap any feat for any feat.


The subject can regain its original Abyssal heritor feat (and lose the replacement feat) by means of embrace the dark chaos,miracle, or wish.


Once the subject has the Abyssal heritor feat, only a miracle, shun the dark chaos, or wish spell can reverse the change.

I'm gonna have to disagree with you on this, since both spells explicitly say to use the other spell to regain your lost feat.

[Lapak]

I'm gonna have to disagree with you on this, since both spells explicitly say to use the other spell to regain your lost feat.True, and yet I agree with the quoted poster: they were almost certainly intended as character-arc tools, not as spells to be cast in rapid succession.

It doesn’t make them unduly powerful (other things mentioned above do that) but it does make them really thematically weird to use this way.

[Tvtyrant]

I'm gonna have to disagree with you on this, since both spells explicitly say to use the other spell to regain your lost feat.

That using them together is placed alongside using miracle and wish, ie end game content, implies to me this is meant to be really rare. Like reversing vampirism, the description basically reads "really hard to do."

[Segev]

Indeed. It isn't saying, "Once you've lost the feat to this spell, cast the other spell to pick a new one." Note that it speaks of regaining lost feats, and of "reversing the change."

While the spells themselves do allow greater flexibility, the way it's clearly being thought of is as reversing undesirable changes, possibly with great effort/as part of a narrative arc.

I won't argue that they work as discussed by the RAW. And I will admit that RAI is a difficult subject to nail down. But it still seems to me that the intent was never for it to be a "shuffle" to get arbitrary undesirable feats swapped out for arbitrary desirable ones.

And it is that apparent conflict of intended use with how it's discussed as being used in the Dark Chaos Shuffle that makes people consider it cheese. Frequently, the definition of "cheese" seems to be, "Wait, that isn't how I envisioned this being used. That seems to break the themes."

[RoboEmperor]

True, and yet I agree with the quoted poster: they were almost certainly intended as character-arc tools, not as spells to be cast in rapid succession.

Yup, I'm gonna have to agree to this!

[RoboEmperor]

Actually, when I read the two feats the first time, I thought it was some kind of niche spell that is used to shutdown enemies with extensive feat chains. Take out an ubercharger's power attack and they're worthless. Of course, I believed this was a huge waste of a level 8 spell slot and not worth the XP so I dismissed it. The two are standard action spells which means they are meant to be used in combat.

So I disagree that these spells were intended to be used out of combat as redemption/damnation related things. I mean they can be used that way but I think they were also intentionally made to disrupt your opponent.

Like you said it's hard to argue RAI, but I think being able to retrain feats is within RAI seeing how they intentionally left out "If you lost a feat due to embrace the dark chaos, then you must pick that feat when you receive a shun the dark chaos" or the like.

But definitely retraining class/racial bonus feats is not RAI.

[Uncle Pine]

There is no creative interpretations or use of the two spells. It's very straightforward and used as intended. Using the two spells to change out your feats is RAI and RAW.

Shun the Dark Chaos is intentionally used to purify an "evil" PC who has chosen an abyssal heritor feat.
Embrace the Dark Chaos is intentionally used to corrupt a PC by changing out a feat for an abyssal heritor feat.
Seeing how they were very detailed in the spell description about gaining/losing stuff, they intentionally made it so you can swap out an abyssal heritor feat to a new feat instead of the old feat it replaced.

The only problem I came across is people claiming racial proficiencies are "feats", which is completely incorrect. It's not RAI, it's not even RAW because proficiencies and racial traits are not feats.

Is it because of these people that people consider DCSF TO and cheese? Because I really don't see any problem with spending 500xp when you gain access to 8th level spells to change out a feat that isn't a prerequisite of another feat or PrC.

It's not just elves.
There are a few ways to acquire additional feats (i.e. Otyugh's hole), which paired with DCS can grant any character an arbitrarily amount of feats. As this usage of DCS sets one of the variables on the character's sheet to arbitrarily high or nigh infinite (depending on the way you handle other resources such as gp), it falls within the realms of TO.

[Cosi]

True, and yet I agree with the quoted poster: they were almost certainly intended as character-arc tools, not as spells to be cast in rapid succession.

So?

The spells do let you do that. The argument is apparently that we should assume designers are so staggeringly incompetent as to not thing about the effect of combining abilities with abilities they reference. I suppose that might be true, but I don't think we should trust someone so obviously deficient in analytic ability to intend the things we think they intend.

[Lapak]

So?

The spells do let you do that. The argument is apparently that we should assume designers are so staggeringly incompetent as to not thing about the effect of combining abilities with abilities they reference. I suppose that might be true, but I don't think we should trust someone so obviously deficient in analytic ability to intend the things we think they intend.The thread’s question was ‘why do people view using these spells in that way as inappropriate,’ and I was answering the question. You are certainly welcome to disagree, as I don’t think the thread’s question was ‘what is the One True Answer.’

[Tvtyrant]

So?

The spells do let you do that. The argument is apparently that we should assume designers are so staggeringly incompetent as to not thing about the effect of combining abilities with abilities they reference. I suppose that might be true, but I don't think we should trust someone so obviously deficient in analytic ability to intend the things we think they intend.

Indeed there are no context clues. Beholder Mage early entry, full BaB fullcasters and ice assassin alephs were the intended system all along.

Yes, infinite feats is tame compared to other 3.5 rules problems and yes it clearly violates the spirit of the games design. That is basically the thread consensus.

[Thurbane]

I believe you can DCS Open Minded for NI skill points...

[Douglas]

Actually, when I read the two feats the first time, I thought it was some kind of niche spell that is used to shutdown enemies with extensive feat chains. Take out an ubercharger's power attack and they're worthless. Of course, I believed this was a huge waste of a level 8 spell slot and not worth the XP so I dismissed it. The two are standard action spells which means they are meant to be used in combat.

So I disagree that these spells were intended to be used out of combat as redemption/damnation related things. I mean they can be used that way but I think they were also intentionally made to disrupt your opponent.

Like you said it's hard to argue RAI, but I think being able to retrain feats is within RAI seeing how they intentionally left out "If you lost a feat due to embrace the dark chaos, then you must pick that feat when you receive a shun the dark chaos" or the like.

But definitely retraining class/racial bonus feats is not RAI.
They both specify willing targets. An enemy ubercharger is not going to be willing.

[RoboEmperor]

They both specify willing targets. An enemy ubercharger is not going to be willing.

Wow I must be blind @_@.

Ok i take it all back. I agree with the above posters, it's to be used exclusively as an out of combat redemption/corruption spells designed for heavy roleplay decisions instead of feat retraining.

[Bronk]

If I had to guess RAI, I'd agree with the others that these were meant to be character arc spells. Evil foes were probably supposed to be the ones with access to 'Embrace the Dark Chaos', and the good guys were probably supposed to be the ones using 'Shun the Dark Chaos' after redeeming the bad guys or during a personal quest of redemption. Having access to only one or the other would have taken care of a lot of the issues regarding all those extra feats all those base classes, and being an elf, grant.

However, if so, they clearly didn't notice that there was no downside for good characters to either of the spells! The big problem is that the Embrace spell isn't evil, just chaotic, and they forgot to make the Abyssal Heritor feats either evil or chaotic. Fluff-wise, a Paladin shouldn't be using these, but that's it... even exalted characters are good to go.

If I could have suggested a fix back then, I'd have told them to make Embrace an evil or vile spell, Shun a good or exalted spell, and make the abyssal heritor feats vile like the elder evil feats. Oh, and reverse the XP cost so that it always comes from the target of the spell. At least then the spells would have role playing consequences.

[unseenmage]

...

Yes, infinite feats is tame compared to other 3.5 rules problems and yes it clearly violates the spirit of the games design. That is basically the thread consensus.
Arms and Equipment Guide has a sidebar that lets one pay 10,000gp plus 5,000gp per prerequisite for any feat one wants and cram it in a magic item.

Minionmancy/Diplomancy can easily get one access to the use of desired feats on one's behalf.

Oh and an arbitrarily large number of feats are already crammed into magic items that are already printed.

3.x also has straight retraining rules. They're not as straightforward 'gp for swap out' as PF's retraining rules but they are there. DMG2 IIRC.

Lots of feats hardly flies in the face of the entire game.


That said, while the shuffle spells themselves might not be
cheese, their interactions with several common elements of the game most certainly is.

[Segev]

Again, in answer to the specific question as to why it's considered cheese, it's because the apparent intention in the fluff of the spells clashes with the Dark Chaos Shuffle's use of the spells.

This, incidentally, is why you'll get arguments over whether a given thing is "cheesy" or merely "overpowered," at times, even when both sides agree something is powerful or too powerful: the perception of the intent of the RAW. If you're using two things together in a way that seems to violate the themes intended by the creator, based on fluff and context, it will seem cheesy. If you, on the other hand, look at those two or more things and think, "Wow, that was a clever set of interactions they designed," it doesn't seem cheesy to you. It seems to you that it's just working as intended. Maybe you'll agree that the designers should have realized this would be too powerful; maybe you don't think it's overpowered. But "cheesy" and "overpowered" may have a lot of overlap, but they refer to different qualities.

There are a number of cheesy tricks that really aren't overpowered at all, in fact. But still, those who are offended by "cheese" will ban them because they see them as violating the spirit of the rules. (Because specific examples elude me at the moment, I hope others can name some. But I KNOW I have seen "that's cheesy, but I'd allow it because it's less broken than a lot of things that are clear within the RAW" a number of times on this forum.)

[Gnaeus]

Again, in answer to the specific question as to why it's considered cheese, it's because the apparent intention in the fluff of the spells clashes with the Dark Chaos Shuffle's use of the spells.

This, incidentally, is why you'll get arguments over whether a given thing is "cheesy" or merely "overpowered," at times, even when both sides agree something is powerful or too powerful: the perception of the intent of the RAW. If you're using two things together in a way that seems to violate the themes intended by the creator, based on fluff and context, it will seem cheesy. If you, on the other hand, look at those two or more things and think, "Wow, that was a clever set of interactions they designed," it doesn't seem cheesy to you. It seems to you that it's just working as intended. Maybe you'll agree that the designers should have realized this would be too powerful; maybe you don't think it's overpowered. But "cheesy" and "overpowered" may have a lot of overlap, but they refer to different qualities.

There are a number of cheesy tricks that really aren't overpowered at all, in fact. But still, those who are offended by "cheese" will ban them because they see them as violating the spirit of the rules. (Because specific examples elude me at the moment, I hope others can name some. But I KNOW I have seen "that's cheesy, but I'd allow it because it's less broken than a lot of things that are clear within the RAW" a number of times on this forum.)

Here’s mine. Early entry tricks to many PRCs are cheesy. I don’t think versatile spellcaster or sanctum spell was meant to work that way. It isn’t OP, but I would rather, as a DM, adjust the entry requirements (to Mystic theurge for one example) than let people slip in contrary to the design intent of entering at 7+

[Segev]

Here’s mine. Early entry tricks to many PRCs are cheesy. I don’t think versatile spellcaster or sanctum spell was meant to work that way. It isn’t OP, but I would rather, as a DM, adjust the entry requirements (to Mystic theurge for one example) than let people slip in contrary to the design intent of entering at 7+

Good example. Good for a few reasons, including it being probably-not-overpowered, as well as it being arguable whether it's against design-intention. After all, there are never rules about PrC entry being at a minimum level. However, it's also clear that, if you just look at Core abilities, and at class design in general, there are clear "minimum levels" for certain abilities. 2nd level spells are for third level characters at the earliest being the most...incorrect...assumption PrC designers might have made.

So yeah! Good example!

(I happen to agree; this is a cheesy interaction of the rules, but it probably isn't broken.)

[VisitingDaGulag]

It isn't. In fact its more balanced (xp costs) than the retraining rules people like for some reason. The problem is that it highlights other weaknesses in the rules with feats. For instance people try to claim that you can move your familiar in and out of range for the alertness feat to gain NI infinite feats. If you ignore that kind of silliness it's fine.

You also need to be careful that weapon proficiencies are not weapon proficiency feats.

[Segev]

It isn't. In fact its more balanced (xp costs) than the retraining rules people like for some reason. The problem is that it highlights other weaknesses in the rules with feats. For instance people try to claim that you can move your familiar in and out of range for the alertness feat to gain NI infinite feats. If you ignore that kind of silliness it's fine.

You also need to be careful that weapon proficiencies are not weapon proficiency feats.

Oh, it is cheese, and TO. But you're not otherwise wrong. The error here is that you're misinterpreting those terms' meanings.

"Cheese" is using something by the RAW but against what people declaring it "cheese" believe to be RAI. That really is about it. It is therefore quite subjective, as it depends on what the people in question consider the RAI to be. But there is a strong argument to be made that Shun the Dark Chaos and Embrace the Dark Chaos were not intended to be used semi-casually and in conjunction with each other on a short-term basis to shuffle arbitrary feats in and out. It certainly isn't hinted at in any of their fluff/flavor text.

TO - Theoretical Optimization - is just that: optimization that works in theory, by the RAW. It is usually only called out when it exceeds what most would assume would be allowed at the gaming table, but technically all optimization that doesn't involve DM fiat and house rules to tweak things to work is TO.

Cheese is almost by definition a subset of TO, in that it is specifically something that works, in theory, by the RAW, but has the distinction of seeming "off" from how the rules were intended to be used.


None of this means that cheese is inherently broken, or overpowered! It can be balanced just fine, depending on the game table and the cheese in question. The Dark Chaos Shuffle might well be quite balanced. But it is also easy to see why it's considered to be cheesy.

[Thurbane]

It isn't. In fact its more balanced (xp costs) than the retraining rules people like for some reason. The problem is that it highlights other weaknesses in the rules with feats. For instance people try to claim that you can move your familiar in and out of range for the alertness feat to gain NI infinite feats. If you ignore that kind of silliness it's fine.

You also need to be careful that weapon proficiencies are not weapon proficiency feats.

Doesn't DCS have less restrictions on what feats you can swap out than the PHB2 retraining rules and Psychic Reformation?

[RoboEmperor]

Doesn't DCS have less restrictions on what feats you can swap out than the PHB2 retraining rules and Psychic Reformation?

No, PHB2 says you can't retrain something that makes another thing you have illegal. So if you want to swap out spell focus:conjuration, you gotta swap out greater spell focus:conjuration and augment summoning first.

DCS lets you just take out spell focus conjuration. Of course the other feats based on it shutdown but it lets you grab spell focus:conjuration at a higher level to re-activate them.

[Gnaeus]

I wouldn’t always say that cheese is just something that is against RAI. I would go broader and say that it is anything that manipulates the system in a metagamy and illogical but not necessarily illegal way. Like building a replacement character or cohort who just happens to not have any of the same spells as an existing party member who you have never met so you can share spell books immediately upon meeting. Or saying that your stepfather was an evil outsider or undead so you can qualify for a prc later. Or being a member of an organization that makes little sense in character but provides some needed benefit. Or selling your Spellbooks to buy war dogs. Or changing alignment solely so you can qualify for classes/PRCs.

So dark chaos shuffle, if you take its flavor text into account, could be cheesy on both fronts. It is against RAI, and it also involves flavor textually experiencing a radical character shift of outlook just so you can undo it a moment later.

[Segev]

I wouldn’t always say that cheese is just something that is against RAI. I would go broader and say that it is anything that manipulates the system in a metagamy and illogical but not necessarily illegal way. Like building a replacement character or cohort who just happens to not have any of the same spells as an existing party member who you have never met so you can share spell books immediately upon meeting.Goes against the spirit of a cohort as a fleshed-out NPC, unless you work really hard to build him conceptually so that this makes sense. In which case, the cohort seeking out a master with whom he is so complementary makes sense!


Or saying that your stepfather was an evil outsider or undead so you can qualify for a prc later.Fluff prerequisites get fluff answers. I don't see this as cheesy. May as well say Harry Potter is cheesy for happening to have wizard parents so he happens to be a wizard so he can play in the Hogwarts campaign.


Or being a member of an organization that makes little sense in character but provides some needed benefit.Why would it not make sense to belong to an organization that provides benefits you want?


Or selling your Spellbooks to buy war dogs.Goes against the RAI of having a free spellbook. It's intended that you use it to store spells so you can play as the class you selected, not as a source of wealth for something unrelated to your class. Fits the given definition of "cheese."

[Thurbane]

No, PHB2 says you can't retrain something that makes another thing you have illegal. So if you want to swap out spell focus:conjuration, you gotta swap out greater spell focus:conjuration and augment summoning first.

DCS lets you just take out spell focus conjuration. Of course the other feats based on it shutdown but it lets you grab spell focus:conjuration at a higher level to re-activate them.

So yes then, it does have less restrictions?

[Gnaeus]

Goes against the spirit of a cohort as a fleshed-out NPC, unless you work really hard to build him conceptually so that this makes sense. In which case, the cohort seeking out a master with whom he is so complementary makes sense!

Fluff prerequisites get fluff answers. I don't see this as cheesy. May as well say Harry Potter is cheesy for happening to have wizard parents so he happens to be a wizard so he can play in the Hogwarts campaign.

Why would it not make sense to belong to an organization that provides benefits you want?

Goes against the RAI of having a free spellbook. It's intended that you use it to store spells so you can play as the class you selected, not as a source of wealth for something unrelated to your class. Fits the given definition of "cheese."

Yes, this is what you tell your GM when you are trying to argue your cheese doesn’t smell. Very good examples of trying to justify blatant metagaming Segev, since I’m certain that is what you were doing.

[RoboEmperor]

So yes then, it does have less restrictions?

Hah, I misunderstood your sentence. It's happened twice this week. Maybe I should look into it.

[Segev]

Yes, this is what you tell your GM when you are trying to argue your cheese doesn’t smell. Very good examples of trying to justify blatant metagaming Segev, since I’m certain that is what you were doing.

Metagaming isn't necessarily cheese. I won't deny it when I do it. Building a character is always going to involve metagaming. If I'm stretching the intention of the rules but staying within the letter, yes, I'm being cheesy. That is, in fact, the definition I gave. You tried to claim that, no, "cheese" is more broadly defined, then proceeded to give examples that either met my definition, or are ... neither cheesy nor munchkinny. "You're just playing an elf so you can get into Arcane Archer!" is hardly cheese. It's a requirement for the class, and you want to play the class. The horror! The unashamed munchkinry! The odiferous cheese!

Wait, no, that's just building a character.

"You just made your character's dad a Fiend so you could have the Half-Fiend template!" "You caught me; I'm playing a character whose parentage requires one fiend and one mortal, and so I made one of my parents a fiend! I should be ashamed of myself. Soooo cheesy!"


I get the impression you're trying to expand "cheese" to include any form of munchkin-like, powergaming tendency. I'm sure you could get some to agree to your redefinition of it, but the issue is that "cheese" encompasses things that aren't particularly optimal or overpowered, as well. For instance, the Dark Chaos Shuffle, which many will cogently argue is ... reasonably priced for what it does. But it's absolutely cheesy. People look askance at it for its odor. Which arises because it's clearly not what the two spells are billing themselves for, flavor-wise.

Sure, I can do a bunch of the stuff you listed as "cheesy but not straining the intent," and be powergaming. But if I'm genuinely not straining the intent of the rules, it's not cheesy.

Using planar binding to get a Hound Archon minion or two may be powergaming, but it's not cheesy. Using it to get an Efreeti to give you three wishes is, because it's clearly outside the intent of a lower level spell to give you three "free" castings of an expensive 9th level spell.

Using a Candle of Invocation to do it is even more so, for the same reason.


I am absolutely a powergamer. I see no shame in that. Thus, I feel no need to "hide the odor of my cheese" in any way. I will instead tell a GM exactly how my build works and what I intend to do with it. I'll call out, if I think of it, any cheesy twistings of the RAW away from the RAI; I don't want him surprised mid-game and deciding my build doesn't work because it goes against fluff. But not all powergaming - not even all munchkinry - is cheese.