Hello,
I always have a hard time to understand, in some post, when people use the term "cheese". So if someone can be so kind to spoon feed me on the definition of that term or validate the following, please:

google search:
https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/21867/origins-of-the-gaming-term-cheese-strategy
"In a gaming scene the word cheese is used to describe strategies or ways of playing that are really powerful and do not require much skill from the players side at the same time. The term is widely used both in video games and tabletop games alike."
- Starlights add-up : finding a hack or a breach from which you can abuse and make easy and repeatable wins.

If there is a consensus on the above definition, then;
We can stop using that word, for the context of an early access game. The goal of an EA is to provide a taste & feel about a foundational framework that will get better define as the development progress.

Am I on the right track here ?

I fail to see how Larian's homebrew rules on top of DOS surfance and barrelmancy doesn't qualify as "cheese".

We use the term as the game has provided strategies that trivialize what should be otherwise difficult and engaging encounters. Many of the mechanics right now are incomplete or not appropriate for the BG IP when they were for the DoS property.

And so many of the strategies that use Larian Rules instead of DnD rules are "Cheese" right now, it is our acknowledgement that these mechanics are EA and need fixing.

Yes, I think that definition of cheese is correct. I have always interpreted the use of "cheese" in a game context to be a reference to a technique, skill, or item which is over-powered to the point where it removes the challenge from playing the game.

Of course there are many flavors of game cheese. "Holy cheese" is when divine intervention is used to keep a stumbling story plot moving along. "Stale cheese" is when a series of encounters are all resolved in the same basic way. "Moldy cheese" is when you have way too many potent magic items gathering moss in your inventory, to the point where you have forgotten they are even there. "Cheese Wiz" is when you encounter a wizard/etc. who has hit points and powers far beyond that of a player character wizard/etc. of the same level. There are probably some others I can't think of at the moment.

I'm not sure what your point is. We don't exactly know what will be kept the same and what Larian will change in the future. Personally I don't like cheese because I like to be immersed in the game and cheese is usually something silly / goofy that makes it hard for me to take the game seriously.

One example of a cheese is that you can kill anything with barrels, there is a solution to this - make enemies notice barrels, move away from them, throw them away or warn the player to get those barrels out of their face or they will attack. This is feedback. Is it a given that Larian will change / add such a mechanic? No, actually most likely nothing will change in this regard and you will be able to beat any encounter with barrels. Same for hidding cheese, it can be solved by making enemies properly scout the sorrounding area looking for the player. Once again, it is not a given that Larian will add such a mechanic.

Given the level of modification Larian has put into moving their interpretation of 5th edition towards "cheese" tactics, and including DOS surface/barrelmancy, etc, I wouldn't expect any significant changes to what they've made the core tenants of the combat which are the use of height for advantage, and the environment.

It's about as far from what DnD combat actually is, but it's what Larian seems to have settled on as their vision for BG3.

Hey there @Kadajko,
My point is, there are lots of complaint about how easy to "cheese the game", but that's an early access game and I think the players & dev are leaning and check & adjust. As you pointing out, the state of the game is not definitive. If the game was finished then it would be different - the complaint would be "valid".

Also, as per the definition, "cheesing the game" doesn't come automatic. you got to find those breach/hack. Ex.: you have to know & find out that you can use barrels to win any battles - you can actually gather & carry those barils and then use them for an up coming battle.
Your example to counter the use of barrel is a good one. You could also make those barrel heavier - the player might not be able to carry too many of them. There might be other options.

I would say that a good reason to express concern over these things is that the barrel cheese is for example almost identical to how it works in Original sin, and no adjustment were ever made about that. My point is basically that it is not a given that larian will do anything about these mechanics and when the game comes out it will be too late,makes sense talking about it now if we want to see change. And hey.)

If I'm honest, with what I've played in 97 hours, if Larian releases the game with the current combat focus being relatively the same as it is now, I'll most likely not play the game at all after release unless someone comes along and mods the DOS and game-breaking homebrew rules out.

The story is not compelling enough to slog through combat that just devolves into get high, spam surface, hide and push with countless class skills and spells just being relatively useless in the grand scheme of the game.

Ah yes, "Cracker Barrel Cheese" keeps coming up. According to Sir Boverton Redwood, the interior of old oil barrels was coated with hot glue, glass, or glycerin to prevent leaks. The barrels were otherwise mainly comprised of white oak staves and iron hoops. Wood is a great heat insulator, so I would think it nearly impossible to ignite a barrel by throwing a fire cracker at it ... unless you are lucky enough to punch the bung.

Two games stick out to me when I think of cheese and difficulty

I've watched someone who is VERY good at XCOM go through missions without getting touched. It never feels like cheese, but rather looks like they're actually commanding a group of elite soldiers.

With BG3, watching someone who is very good often ends with me thinking "are you serious, that actually worked"? or just laughing at how ridiculous it is. It's closer to watching a TAS speedrun (tool-assisted-speedrun if you don't know the term). It looks fake and silly.

I wish BG3 had more of an XCOM feel to encounters instead of the feeling that someone is exploiting the game. Just my opinion though.

high ground, backstab, excessive spell scrolls, shove, barrelmancy etc. are all cheese to me. They have too much reward for how little skill they require. This would be for the game now, and if they are still there in release it well be cheese then.

Highground needs to be toned back.
Backstab should only give it with flanking OR stealth.
I think spell scrolls should be toned back in the loot a bit BUT made something expensive you can find at appropriate merchants. A reward for Wizards to inscribe or item to carefully use for anyone else.
Shove is.. fine I guess, just tone back.
Barrels should either be toned back OR be made so much less common, so you still get rewarded for keeping one intact and using it later BUT you don't have the ability to use them for even a half or quarter of the fights.

Definitely, adding a premium on the mechanics would improve the game.

+2 ranged attack cover AC needs to be implemented for melee combat, and high ground should be changed to negate the +2 cover AC
Agree on backstab
Scrolls should only be able to be used by those with the spells in their class list.
Shove needs to be moved from a bonus action to a standard action, and only knock the character 5 feet or prone.
Barrels should be removed entirely unless they are filled with actual black powder, and shot with a fire arrow
Jump/disengage, needs to be replaced with a standard disengage action that provokes an attack of opportunity.

The gameplay as is? Yes, it's cheese tactics.

It can (as of pre druid patch) be fixed with mods.

@OP: Thank you, those are very good definitions of cheese.
And I do believe that many things in this game fall under this definition of cheese, especially most rule changes of Larian (compared to DnD) allow OP actions that can be done by anyone without any skill.

Problems and possible solutions:
- problem 1: barrels
solution 1a: barrels are so heavy that even the strogest char can only carry one of them.
solution 1b: barrels do not fit in the inventory, you have to carry them slowly one by one. This would introduce grapple mechanic.
solution 1c: enemies react to this. They walk away from them or they throw them at the player when they see it. You could still use them, but you have to throw them at the enemy as an action or you have have to place them in a way that the enemy does not see them.

- problem 2: hight advantage
solution: hight gives +2 bonus but not advantage, add cover mechanic

- problem 3: backstab
solution: When enemies can see party members they will always face the party member that is closest to them. To gain advantage, you have to flank the enemy or the enemy must not see you (stealth or invisible)

- problem 3: jumping
solution: separate jump and disengage, jumping while standing next to an enemy provokes AoO, it does not avoid them.

- problem 4: too many surfaces
solution 4a: Single target actions should never cause surface effects, such as fire arrows.
Solution 4b: Attacks that miss the target should never create surface attacks under the target.
solution 4C: You have to target a surface OR a target. When an enemy stands close to an oil surface you can shoot at the enemy with a fire arrow to deal additional 1d4 damage or you can shoot at the oil to ignite it. Hitting the enemy does not ignite the oil.
solution 4d: Enemies should not bleed poison or fire unless it is stated in their description.

DnD has many surface effects that are useful (grease, web, spike groth, entangle and others), no need to add more of them just because somebody thinks its cool when the whole screen is on fire.

- problem 5: stealth abuse
solution: When enemies are hit by an unseen attacker they look and move in the direction where the shot came from. You should know if something hits you in the front or in the back. Enemies could cast a cloud or darkness spell to prevent shooting at them. You could use this as advantage (you shoot from stealth from the left. enemies look left. Another party member can do something on the right without being seen.)

- Shove can stay as it is, but it should be an action, not a bonus action. Under the right conditions (like you shove somebody off a cliff) it can be more deadly than an attack.

edit:
- Scrolls can only be used if the spell belongs to the list of class spells of the user. Mages can only learn mage spells from scrolls.

'cheese', 'exploits', 'gaming the system' for me are largely all interchangeable and others in this thread have done a good job in highlighting why such tactics can trivialize the 5e or dnd side of the current ea bg3 build.

now if you want to see examples of some of these things in action, go check out swen's playthru from the most recent panel of hell as thats pretty much all it was lol. watching larian's founder 'cheese' his own game quickly made me adjust my expectations for the final launch, altho i did learn from watching that you can chuck hp potions at allies to heal them

What?! Well this is a first, "Anti-cheese". I guess Larian is indeed the Cheese Meister.

Are you trying to say that "when in combat, the player shouldn't be able to exchange gears/items with other party member/companion" ? As if the inventory can get locked when in combat ..

If yes, then I agree to your potential solution.

Hi @Madscientist,

You welcome ! And your post is on the mark.

But just so you understand why I made this post, I am not a gamer at all - w/ Covid-19 - now I am, at least with BG3. So I lack background big time.

So in regards of cheese, well: Killing Gale in my party so I can throw his body around and kill few vilains with his necrotic damage is an acceptable solution. The "engine" allows me to do it, and it's not buggy, it work as intended within the rule of the engine. And lots of fun too, especially when you throw him off the balcony in goblin camp and then use my mage hand to keep dragging his body around ..

But I found out, from a Larian's interview, that it wasnt the intended design or goal, to throw Gale's body around. So that is an exploit I would say, according to the definition.

So I'm just thinking this post should help people to expose those "cheese strategy" and be turn into feedback for the team ?

Now thats something interesting.

All discussions about which companion is most powerful are wrong.
The correct answer is: Gale is the most powerful one, but only when he is dead. He can damage enemies but they cannot damage a dead character.
So much about people saying mage hand is useless.

not necessarily^ i think there is some tuning there with inventory locks in combat and the exploits currently in game expand beyond just inventory/combat as there are things related to class balance, no risk resting, abundance of consumables/potions, etc. and there are various threads that go into further detail for these areas.

specifically highlighted in my original post tho - i do think its foolish to be able to throw a healing potion at an ally and they get healed upon impact

reality check:
When I see people throwing eggs and fruits at someone there is only one possible explanation:
Those are BG3 players who want to heal this person!

No, you shouldn't be able to rummage round in another character's backpack in the middle of combat as a free action.

For me "cheese" means anti-immersive implementations, oftentimes unbalanced and more often than not needlessly and crudely injected into the game despite there being a plethora of objectively better D&D alternatives, because Larian loves silly fun that much - and moar iz betta!

Pickpocketing is an example of cheese that likely won't change, DOS2 had the exact same issue. It is essentially a never ending dispenser of free stuff. Once you know the mechanics/savescum, there is zero risk for almost no effort for the best supply of loot and gold in the game. Totally breaks any sort of reward vs. risk balancing mechanic. You might say you can ignore stuff if you don't like it, but you still feel punished for roleplaying (anything other than an amoral kleptomaniac) in the game. This is pretty bad for a roleplaying game that takes itself seriously and that attempts to walk in the shoes of the BG classic (who at least had a balanced law & order system). And this is but one of way too many cheesy half-assed implementations.


My ideal game would reduce encumbrance capacity drastically. Realistically your entire party shouldn't be able to carry a single barrel - without reducing movement speed to a crawl. So the cheese is in several layers. This isn't based on "muh realism" as it might sound, but a certain consistent internal logic is helpful for immersion. The loot focus (that detracts from the character build focus), most of it trash or unbalanced homebrew, feeds into this. Larian's insistence on excessive loot is why I never finished DOS2, and I imagine partly why the large majority of players never did.

Although I LOVE XCOM 2, and am playing it right now in fact, there is no way that game would transfer to this game. First, there are some people here that complain this game is too difficult, if they think this game is difficult, there is no way they would last in XCOM. Second, there is people that complain about "save scumming" in this game, and that is basically all XCOM is. You make one mistake, or have a bad RNG roll in XCOM and you are quite literally done. Not to mention, your team is dead, and in that game when you lose your soldiers, it hurts, bad. Especially if they are SGT or higher.

There is a lot of stuff in XCOM I do wish they would integrate in this game though. A way to possibly build our camp up for certain abilities or bonuses. More random encounters. A better sense of urgency and such just to name a few. I also see why they integrate "cheese" into this game. You have game "journalists" (God I don't even want to call them that nowadays) that complain about any game that isn't just cake walk, with no challenge or risk. Complaining about gatekeeping if there is any type of barrier to see the story. So they integrate the barrelmancy into the game for people like that I think. But honestly, you DON't have to use them. I have never used barrels, hardly any scrolls in any of my play throughs, and I have not had much difficulty with the battles. So I doubt very much Larian is EVER going to remove them.

That has to be one of the most creative and hilarious strategies I have heard so far.

"Papyrus Cheese" was a problem even in the original Baldur's Gate, where every group of gibberlings seemed to have one or two libraries. According to the AD&D DMG, scroll production is not a trivial thing, and certainly the value of a scroll should be high. The basic elements of scroll fabrication included the following:

1) Must be 7th level or higher to scribe, and of level high enough to cast the spell normally
2) Takes 1 day per spell level of preparation per scroll, and chance of success is not 100%
3) Requires special paper, but not too expensive
4) Requires special ink ... this is where it gets really interesting! A Protection from Petrification ink requires eye of basilisk, feather of cockatrice, and venom from a Medusa snake. And also some crushed peridot and topaz gems, and six pumpkin seeds.

I just don't think scrolls should ever be included in random treasure drops.

For once I would be happy if only classes who have a spell on the list of their class spells can use a scroll.

It is a magic setting and players expect to find magic stuff.
Its hard to find the right balance between being able to find cool stuff while making it so rare that finding it feels special.

I think BG1 did it right.
Getting your first weapon+1 felt special.
Unique stuff was very rare in the beginning and finding it felt very importent.

In BG2 it was a bit too much for my taste.
I finished ToB only once. It felt boring for me. When you get epic encounters, loot and abilities around every corner it stops feeling epic very fast.

From this position BG3 has too many magic items.
- You should get unique items only from "bosses" or at well hidden places.
- Shops should not get new magic items when you rest.

But I thought bard AND rogue (when higher level) could use scrolls, among other classes that has magic like wizard / cleric. That's what I read in some d&d rules webs site.

The fighter, though, should only be worry about how to swing a sword/weapons.

I could start quoting stuff from what I read, but perhaps this is where people with more background should shine in ? I mean, if as a battlemaster with my full plate armour, shield / sword I can use a scroll to silence a bunch a wizards and then start swinging my sword around - trust me, I will find a way to make it fun!

I am not the expert for DnD rules.
And I have played so many games that its easy to be confused which rules is from which DnD edition, Pathfinder, DSA or whatever.

Lets put it that way: Scrolls should only be usable for characters than can use them under DnD 5E rules.

Its possible. Sheathing and drawing are both free actions. I know the warcaster feat lets sword and shield eldritch knights cast freely too as well as other things. I don't see a problem with scrolls. Frequency of scrolls is a different issue though.

The problem with scrolls is that any class can use them in BG#

A spell scroll bears the words of a single spell, written in a mystical cipher. If the spell is on your class’s spell list, you can read the scroll and cast its spell without providing any material components. Otherwise, the scroll is unintelligible. Casting the spell by reading the scroll requires the spell’s normal casting time. Once the spell is cast, the words on the scroll fade, and it crumbles to dust. If the casting is interrupted, the scroll is not lost.

https://www.dndbeyond.com/magic-items/spell-scroll

The only exception is a level 13 rogue using the "use magical device" skill.

Ok. I think its fair though to allow use. I'm pretty sure casters are quite a bit more powerful than martials. It's just that EA has not reached the power spikes yet. For a martial to not attack is a trade off depending on the situation. Losing rage, losing extra attack, losing stunning strike, losing crit smite chance, etc. Frequency of scrolls found should be whats tweaked not the ability to use them.

Let martials have a choice.

And that is how you get a broken game that plays like you dropped some DnD characters into DOS2, but stripped them of class requirements for half their skills. Not to mention that there's near zero reason to choose eldritch knight as a sub-class since you can just load up your battle master with scrolls.

Welcome to hybrid classes. Lol.

Eldritch knight's problem is not spells because booming blade, green flame blade, and shadow blade are not phb first of all. So you are screwed either way. Second is all about action economy as well as the good war magic locked to level 18. Even if you fix those two things it still contradicts 4 extra attack. Scrolls should be the last thing on an Ek's mind.

Why would a battle master not be using the superior die? You think a single scroll would ever be better than supper die? Read that list. No reason to use scrolls. If you're min/maxing, which I assume is what youe are talking about, it's a sharp drop in dpr. Also assuming a vacuum 1v1. In a team fight who cares which party member sent the spell flying? As a mage the less you are required to use a spell slot the more you can nova an encounter. If you like casters you should be all for this. Not to mention upcast is where the money is. Base spells are just ok most of the time.

So is the problem you have with EK's or wizard domination over martials?

With the right spells wizards can build to better martials than martials that range from 10min to an hour to a full day. Relax. No need for drama. You lose nothing and gain tactical options without relying on resting.

"hybrid classes"? Where exactly is that in the PHB or DMG?

Some subclass are based on the idea of mixing classes together. Eldritch knight is a fighter with wizard spells. Hexblade is a warlock with more of brawler focus like a fighter. Paladin oath of the ancients is a Paladin mixed with druid. Every class has a sort of hybrid option. Hence hybrid class is how I see them. Some are very strong, others not so much. I can list the phb ones if you want.

My definition of cheese mostly consists of mechanics or environmental factors that end up overpowering traditional strategies so much that you're pretty much expected to take advantage of them if you want to have an easier time. Even worse when the game happens to be balanced around said cheese, to the point that approaching an encounter with a traditional mindset and without any foresight means you're paddling up shit creek and you can expect a reload.

High ground advantage/low ground disadvantage isn't what I'd consider cheese, it's just a highly questionable design decision. Taking advantage of it by itself isn't cheese. But what pushes it into cheese range is the existence of bonus action shove, which further emphasizes control of the high ground by rewarding players with an opportunity for bonus damage via yeeting things that try to pursue your party. Not to mention that the existence of an ability that anyone can use which can outright result in instant kills when used at certain angles really shouldn't be a bonus action to begin with. There's a very good reason why the high ground/low ground advantage/disadvantage system as well as bonus action shoves don't exist in tabletop DnD, and BG3 is basically proof of why.

Stuff like barrelmancy is also low hanging fruit in this regard, but probably the absolute biggest offender is the idea that you can have a single character start a fight and roll initiative, and the rest of the party can just sneak around the whole battlefield doing whatever they want as long as they don't use an action that breaks stealth or walk into a sight cone, while the one character in combat just stalls their turn. That is what pushes barrelmancy into 'neat environmental prop' into 'highly abusable mechanic that can potentially delete most encounters'.

The game currently isn't what I'd consider legitimately hard, and taking advantage of the cheese mechanics doesn't mean you're smart, it just means you learned how to flip the chess board to play checkers instead.

It's kind of telling that the vast majority of advice on how to tackle fights in this game ultimately boils down to figuring out how to abuse the homebrew mechanics and/or the environment, instead of being character-specific or advising on effective use of abilities.

And the fact that there are class archetypes that have limited casting abilities, has what to do with the fact that Larian has deviated from the rules and allows non-caster classes to use spells scrolls as if they were casters, and casters to use spell scrolls for spells that aren't in their spell list?

The bottom line is that Larian's usual way of doing things, like giving a massive high ground boost, basically nullifies a lot of class skills, spells, and other things that have meaning in D&D and part of the strategy and feeling of accomplishment in the game that are now totally pointless. Like I've been complaining about druid a lot lately, because bear form is kind of bad and moon druid is therefore pointless. The issue is that the bear doesn't take advantage of the Larian cheese, so just don't use it. The OP posited a great way to use the spider form in another topic (which land gets right away) based entirely on out of control environmental effects of basically lighting the entire battlefield on fire with web. So again, you're being actively incentivized to avoid huge swaths of the game, and that's the problem. Nobody wants to feel like they inhibiting themselves. And when people complaint it's not like D&D I don't think it's random fanboying, it's really saying, "There's all these things that have a purpose because it's tradeoff or because you should use it and there's value in it, and now there isn't value in it." It simplifies it a lot but you sacrifice a lot of what makes each class special or meaningful. This also impacts replay value because you're not going to really change it up as between a Rogue and a fighter at this moment.

What's disheartening is that it's not clear Larian is engaging with the "why" behind people's complaints. When they nerfed firebolt, it wasn't just because it was firebolt right? The idea was the cantrip with so powerful that it was reducing the importance of other cantrips and other spells. So now you had fewer meaningful choices because firebolt was such an optimal choice. As far as I can tell, Larian hasn't acknowledged that design philosophy and that's what worries me. It's not just about responding to specific things the players are identifying, because we can nitpick a million things but that gets lost in the shuffle. The real bottom line is designing the game in a way that everything has a purpose.

You literally inquired about hybrid. I answered. You don't like homebrew? No use complaining to me. Most expansions in 5e are just official homebrew so I'd suggest a different tactic in trying to get your ideas across. From what I've seen so far you will just be hand waved away. In my opinion martial classes using scrolls does not seem like a big deal. So you do you.

This statement doesn't check out at all when you consider we are going to be playing above level 4. Yes, there are many spells that are better than an attack action, especially when you consider that spellcasters often use spells for benefits beyond pure damage. If a fighter can cast any spell via spell scroll when the situation calls for it, and get 3 attack actions + action surge + battle master maneuvers, then there isn't a reason to play a spell caster.

Not to mention, this defeats the entire purpose of having more than one spell casting class. If every class can cast every spell via a scroll, then classes don't mean anything, this isn't even an RPG game, let alone D&D. And this includes wizards, they should NOT be able to learn every spell in the game from scrolls, only the spells available to wizards on their spell list can be learned.

For all the talk about Larian cheese, I have always considered it a given that spell scrolls would eventually become properly restricted to class before release, it really would be the most damaging of all changes that could be made to D&D in this game, to give away the most special aspect of the class system to every other class. Talk about changes to action economy and combat mechanics all you want, but if everyone gets access to each other's class abilities, then there really is no D&D here, by any stretch of the imagination.

One of the benefits of going EK is to be able to use spells, you don't get many spell slots as a Knight, scrolls are very useful for going past spellslot limit for utility if your dm lets you find them. Sometimes being able to just fling a fireball via scroll or use an invisibility scroll is better than doing so with one's own spellslots or even the multiattack.

Except all the "hybrid classes" you mentioned have spell list limitations. Eldritch knights sacrifice extra martial abilities to have light spell casting abilities, but can't ever cast above 4th level spells, and have a very narrow spell list. Hexblade and oath of ancients paladins also have a limits on spells available to them. So this does not come anywhere close to providing an argument for why all classes should be able to cast all spells. There really isn't an argument that could justify that. There is no equivalence between creating a new class with unique features/limitations, and saying you made a "new" class by giving it every ability.

Couldn't have said it better. Those "hybrid" classes as you are trying to call them, are archetypes of their root class, Eldritch Knight is still a fighter, that gets limited casting abilities. It still can't use a scroll with a spell that isn't on its class list.

Agree with everything you said.

I would argue Shove is fundamentally unbalanced and cheesy as it is a normal action that somehow is unique for the player and that disregards physical realities. A halfling can bully an ogre freely with it, the kinetic energy is more akin to a cannonball than something realistic. But Larian's cheesy homebrew has unwittingly opened a can of worm that WILL require evermore homebrew or selective implementations. Feats like Sentinel+Polearm Mastery in conjunction with Shove will be able to damage and in effect stun-lock enemies.

Incentivizing high ground/flanking tactical movement is originally smart design. It devolves into Larian cheesy dumbfuckery by a complete disregard for balance. It is so over-incentivized it makes combat revolve around exploiting overpowered homebrew advantage - that furthermore makes a host of spells/class abilities (ie. Barbarian's Reckless Attack) redundant. Which again will require more homebrew or screw these over. ​

Flanking is piling on the cheese in further two ways. How the enemy AI consistently fails to abuse it (while they exploit height advantage so much, they almost break immersion by abandoning near melee encounters to scramble to faraway vantage points), so again it's mostly a natural movement that is "player only". Secondly, the flanking mechanic is virtually guaranteed for no/little effort (unlike height advantage). The way you move to the back of an enemy without them reacting is so extremely unrealistic it again hurts immersion. It simply strips the turn-based system naked as a bad approximation of real combat. Larian could easily have restricted this by ie. having everyone pivot towards one threatening enemy within range. Realism and balance restored. Cheese gone. But actual tactics and smart plays is an impediment to Larian's silly fun cheese.

D&D is a fragile eco-system, and Larian cheese is an invasive species.

How does high ground work with area spells such as Stinking Cloud or Cloudkill? Can you cast those spells to locations over your head, so that your own party on the ground stays safe?

Damage dealt and magic item effects can break the argument of multi attack vs single scroll. It really depends on the situation including what you are fighting. Action surge is a moot point since it is limited. Yes partial classes have limited spells. It makes scrolls more valuable to them. So?

I never said anything about learning spells from scrolls either. Just using them. Like I said before, how frequent you get scrolls is more the issue. So if thats all then that as they say is that. Half decent wizards dominate games so don't expect me to have sympathy for the class. Especially when this is a buff to a team encounter and a indirect massive buff to spell caster spell slots and upcast.

All I can tell you is agree to disagree.

Remember, Flanking isn't actually in BG3. Flanking would be more sensible, at it requires allies to be on either side of an enemy, and it's reasonable that a surrounded enemy couldn't properly defend themselves against both attackers. It has some limitations and risk involved.

BG3 has Backstab, which yes has all the problems that you mention.

On the topic of spellcaster cheese: the flaming sphere. Enemies seem to view it as a melee combatant, even though the sphere is indestructible. On its own, it doesn't do much damage, so the spell can run out when facing enemies that can heal or have lots of hit points. However, if you have two spellcaster capable of summonign one each, you can just keep sending in new spheres, and if you hide the party, enemies won't have other targets, so they will try to attack the spheres instead and perish in the aura...

Late EA battle behind spoiler.

Sure, and the trouble with unfinished games is that it is easy to discuss balance, while a balance pass might not even be done. Still, I am worried that what we call "cheese" might be intentional design by Larian. We say jump, hight advantage and backstab are too OP and Larian says:

Hi @ash elemental,

Flaming sphere is quite an "overpower" spell indeed - but again, allowed by the engine. But to make it more "cheese" or "cheese^2" (if there is such definition), here some ideas on how to use it.

keep your party at distance, or hidden, as you said, then cast the flaming sphere and start attacking vilains with the sphere and then:
1- vilains will take damage just for standing in the flaming sphere aura at every turn;
2- Vilains will group to attack the flaming sphere, as you are pointing out;
3- "After" the 2nd round though, have your party to start attacking the vilains from range - the vilains will still be focused on the sphere & you keep your party outside the sphere aura.

Optionals, if you have a Druid in the party - then things will get more ugly - try that: have the druid to change into spider and start throwing web on your flaming sphere
This is where, I believe you can use the quote "I'm going to burn this place down".

Basically, flaming sphere can distract from the group and attract all vilains to one place (you're in control) - you just need to wait a little that they are fully attracted to it - like a honeypot for mosquitos. And then the player/party comes to play.

That trick works everywhere, even on bullate (or the gith patrol). You just need to corner Bullate where you can get the drow armor as she doesn't run away.

From my view, this process fits in the definition of "cheese" as it's quite easy to repeat the process everywhere in the game. It's just boring to only do that everywhere in the game.

That is actually what my screenshot is showing (party is hidden). I think it's cheese not due to the spell itself, but due to how the enemies for some reason consider the sphere an opponent they can melee. Enemies should recognize it as a spell effect and, failing to damage it, they should move away instead. I suspect the sphere is coded as a summon/npc of sorts and hence the weird enemy behaviour.

Hi @Wormerine, (to save real estate in the post, I copied your post link in your quote instead, so it stays link with your youtube),

I am glad that you double click on the original post - that's exactly my point (well it's actually my point ), using "cheese" and "hack" in an early access game doesn't have its place. These days, when doing a run through, I am focus in finding those "hacks" or "cheese" or ways to abuse the engine as much as I can, and then find ways to post them here with in mind Larian can pick them up and adapt for final game release.

"Let the cheese come !!"

I'm glad to see we're on the same page.

I don't know how anyone can justify individual surprise attacks granting you virtually 8 free actions across your team at the beginning of the first turn.

There where cheese tactics in bg1 + 2 also (for example trap stacking). However the massiv difference was that it never intended to be used this way and people just came up with weird ideas on use of spells and ability’s that devs didn’t see when they made the game.

In bg3 larians devs are fully aware of the cheese and put it into the game intentionally because they think it’s fun. And since they’re history lies in divinity games and not DnD games it’s not much of a surprise. And because they are not DnD gamers no one will ever be able to convince them that they are wrong in this case.

This is why so many people say the license should have gone to an other company for the sake of DnD.

Larian DS1:
Action Points are very strong

Larian official talk DS2:
Action Points a very strong so you have only 4 to 6 maximum per Round.

Laian: "pse come here"
Player: "What is it"?
Larian: " When you combine Invisibility (enemys make nothing) with this Starter Rogue talent you can have play like having 2 times 6 Acion Points and exploit the fuck out of it"

Haha, me too. Though I can't tell if this is a brick of stinky cheese or just pure rotten filth.