# The Essentials articles are atrocious.



## EarthSeraphEdna (Nov 7, 2009)

The entire Essentials line of articles of Dragon Magazine strikes me as wholly unnecessary and of noteworthily low quality. Would any of you be familiar with how "official" video game strategy guides are inevitably of lower quality and provide less useful information, hints, and tactics compared to the free walkthroughs on GameFAQs? The exact same phenomenon happens here.

There exists an assortment of "Handbooks", useful and practical guides for creating and playing a character of a given class, be it a sorcerer or a paladin, available on the official CharOp board, whose content is even color-coded and spans the full breadth of all 30 levels. Despite this, WotC insists on churning out "Essentials" articles which provide much less, and moreover, worse information on how to craft and play a character of a particular class than these Handbooks (i.e. extremely overvaluing Constitution, mixes of odd and even ability scores for level 1 starting arrays, 14 Intelligence for a Tactical Presence warlord, disregarding Commander's Strike for a Tactical Presence warlord, stating that Devastating Strike is "the cornerstone at-will attack for most barbarians" [even though Whirling Slayer barbarians cannot use it], *completely ignoring the existence of double weapons for Tempest Technique fighters, recommending Sure Strike for a sword-and-board fighter*, etc.) and which are part of what those who have subscribed to Insider are paying for. If the articles are about optimization anyway, why recommend subpar options?

Tell me, would you rather consult a stock market advisor who does pro bono work and is known for being wise and knowledgeable in his or her field of expertise, or one who charges for his or her work and offers shoddy guidance that is more likely to lose you money than earn it?

Yes, the Essentials articles provide feats, powers, paragon paths, and so on. However, Dragon Magazine happens to have a series of articles meant for the sole purpose of providing crunch for players, and that would be Class Acts. What WotC should do is nix the entire Essentials line and include a link to a CharOp Handbook or two in the introductory page of each Class Acts article. It reduces the work that their writers have to exert, it frees up pages for the current issue, it gives a well-deserved shout-out to the hard-working (and paying) community to increase their PR, and it refers readers to substantial and useful guides, so why are they not doing it?

I thoroughly cringe at the prospect of them releasing a "Player's Strategy Guide", full of oh-so-wise hints and tricks on how to "optimize" a character, next year. The fact that one of the characters on the cover, presumably a ranger, is wielding a pair of khopeshes over, say, scimitars or bastard swords, is an omen of things to come. Mark my words, a build for this particular character shall appear in this book, and at level 11, they shall state something along the lines of "This is what we have been waiting for. Since the khopesh is a heavy blade and an axe, we can take the Deadly Axe paragon feat and add 2d8 damage to all of our critical hits, and we can reroll 1s on that damage too!"

Edit: I feel I must emphasize the part where they recommend *Sure Strike* for a sword-and-board fighter, along with *15 Strength*, 14 Constitution, 14 Dexterity, 8 Intelligence (indeed), 14 Wisdom, and 10 Charisma for a starting array, pre-racial modifiers.

Edit: Here are a few examples of CharOp handbooks that are much more substantial and much more helpful than the Essentials articles that WotC lovelessly and uninformedly puts out: 
http://community.wizards.com/charop/wiki/Fighter/Handbook
http://community.wizards.com/charop/wiki/Warden/Handbook
http://community.wizards.com/charop/wiki/Barbarian/Handbook
http://community.wizards.com/go/thr..._of_Faith_and_Facestabs_The_Paladins_Handbook
http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/20123797/The_True_Magus_A_Wizards_Handbook


----------



## Ktulu (Nov 7, 2009)

huh...  I've found them to be enjoyable, myself.  I don't care much for optimizataion, but the feats and powers have been enjoyable, and they're fairly useful to give a new player to show him a baseline idea of what options are good.

As far as the art goes, I don't think they have to draw minmax powergameus for each and every depiction of a character.  Not only that, it was drawn by Gabe of Penny-Arcade, who was presumably given a bit of freedom on his art choice.


----------



## Klaus (Nov 7, 2009)

They're some of my favorite articles. Not only do they explain some of the basics of a class (without telling you how you must play), they offer crunch at the end to round out a build or two (like the high Dex/low Wis Tempest, or the low Dex/High Wis fighter).

Atrocity, like beauty, seems to be in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## EarthSeraphEdna (Nov 7, 2009)

Klaus said:


> They're some of my favorite articles. Not only do they explain some of the basics of a class (without telling you how you must play)




That they do when it comes to the words part... mostly. (No, WotC, you do not recommend *Sure Strike* and suggest that it is "much-maligned" for no reason, and you do not act as though double weapons do not exist for a Tempest Technique fighter.) Then around come the numbers and you start to wonder about WotC's thought processes. Really, *15* Strength, 14 Constitution, 14 Dexterity, 8 Intelligence, 14 Wisdom, 10 Charisma for a sword and board fighter?



Klaus said:


> they offer crunch at the end to round out a build or two (like the high Dex/low Wis Tempest, or the low Dex/High Wis fighter).




As stated above, they already have a series for this: Class Acts. The "Essentials" spinoff, which includes shoddy character-building tips, is wholly superfluous.


----------



## ki11erDM (Nov 7, 2009)

I don’t think you are the target audience; they are targeted at people who don’t have the time or knowledge to optimize* as effectively as you obviously do.  Just because you are not the target audience does not make it un-useful to all D&D players.


*is optimize the new politically correct min/max?


----------



## ki11erDM (Nov 7, 2009)

Adslahnit said:


> Really, *15* Strength, 14 Constitution, 14 Dexterity, 8 Intelligence, 14 Wisdom, 10 Charisma for a sword and board fighter?




Those are very very close to what my sword and board fighters starting stats are (who is the most enjoyable character I have ever played).  So thanks for insulting my intelligence and my play style.


----------



## EarthSeraphEdna (Nov 7, 2009)

ki11erDM said:


> I don’t think you are the target audience; they are targeted at people who don’t have the time or knowledge to optimize* as effectively as you obviously do.  Just because you are not the target audience does not make it un-useful to all D&D players.




Is it really so hard to, say, explain that "Sure Strike is a poor power and should be very low on your priority list" or, even recommend a better starting array for a Tactical Presence warlord? 16 Strength, 12 Constitution, 10 Dexterity, 16 Intelligence, 8 Wisdom, 12 Charisma, hey, I just came up with one right now which is easier to grasp and is easier to figure out the point cost of than the 17 Strength, 13 Constitution, 10 Dexterity, 14 Intelligence, 8 Wisdom, 11 Charisma mishmash that they have in Warlord Essentials right now.

Better advice is no harder to grasp than poor guidance because, well, it is better advice.


----------



## EarthSeraphEdna (Nov 7, 2009)

ki11erDM said:


> Those are very very close to what my sword and board fighters starting stats are (who is the most enjoyable character I have ever played).  So thanks for insulting my intelligence and my play style.




16 Strength, 12 Constitution, 16 Dexterity, 10 Intelligence, 12 Wisdom, 8 Charisma. Superior attack bonus, greater damage bonus, better AC, higher Fortitude, more Reflex, faster speed (hide armor), and you need not have resorted to a roundabout ability score spread. A 16/16/12/12/10/8 ability score spread is more effective, more intuitive, and easier to conceive and double-check the validity of than a 15/14/14/14/10/8 array, so why recommend the latter to new players if they are building a new character anyway?


----------



## Dire Bare (Nov 7, 2009)

The "Essential" series of articles aren't minmaxing guides to help you create the most devasting characters possible.  They are introductory articles for relative newbies who need help understanding the "shtick" of a class and how to create a competent, if not minmaxed, character.

Besides, "atrocious"?  Really?  Why the melodrama?  Can't you just say, "Hey, I disliked the article, someone please explain to me why you might have liked it?"  And then to criticize those who did find the article useful and/or entertaining . . . it's just crass, really.


----------



## fuzzlewump (Nov 7, 2009)

ki11erDM said:


> Those are very very close to what my sword and board fighters starting stats are (who is the most enjoyable character I have ever played).  So thanks for insulting my intelligence and my play style.



Actually, OP is right. Those are poor stats from a character optimization point of view. I don't see anywhere where he is insulting anyone's intelligence. Why would an article telling you how to play your class give you poor stats to start with? It doesn't make much sense, and can certainly steer new players away from better paths. 



> I don’t think you are the target audience; they are targeted at people who don’t have the time or knowledge to optimize* as effectively as you obviously do. Just because you are not the target audience does not make it un-useful to all D&D players.



That's fine. But people who don't have the time or knowledge to optimize are getting _poor advice_ from an optimization stand point from this article. People who don't "have the time" should instead be directed to CharOp forums, which take an equal amount of time to read and give better advice. See his point now?

 That said, I still love the articles because of the new powers and feats.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 7, 2009)

fuzzlewump said:


> That's fine. But people who don't have the time or knowledge to optimize are getting _poor advice_ from an optimization stand point from this article. People who don't "have the time" should instead be directed to CharOp forums, which take an equal amount of time to read and give better advice. See his point now?




Is the purpose of the articles specifically to help people/newbies min max?  If that is not the point of the articles then his point is off point.


----------



## fuzzlewump (Nov 7, 2009)

Dire Bare said:


> Besides, "atrocious"?  Really?  Why the melodrama?  Can't you just say, "Hey, I disliked the article, someone please explain to me why you might have liked it?"  And then to criticize those who did find the article useful and/or entertaining . . . it's just crass, really.



Atrocious is certainly a strong word, given that I love about half of the articles. But I'm not seeing anywhere where he is criticizing anything but the articles themselves.

I certainly see the "atrocious" word has made his point far more blunt than it needs to be, but it still remains. I mean, why give poor advice to players when better advice takes the same amount of time and effort? I mean, it's not like he's advocating to have a damage analysis on every power, but to say sure-strike is a good choice for anyone is poor advice.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Nov 7, 2009)

Optimize is to min/max as ethnic cleansing is genocide


----------



## fuzzlewump (Nov 7, 2009)

Crothian said:


> Is the purpose of the articles specifically to help people/newbies min max?  If that is not the point of the articles then his point is off point.



Yeah, definitely. I don't really know what the intent is, but if you're going to give a new player a stat array, you might as well make it a good one. When in D&D history has WotC just flat out given a stat array rather than advice on building one? It comes down to this issue where D&D has, by design, put in poor choices so that experts would have an advantage since they would know how to avoid them. Assuming that design is gone, the articles should have the best, or close to them, stat arrays available.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Nov 7, 2009)

Sure strike is a wizards favorite.  There is a very internally focussed gaming culture at WIzards.  They overvalue accuracy, for one quirk.


----------



## Klaus (Nov 7, 2009)

Sure Strike + Exotic Weapon Fighting = Awesome power.

Sure Strike is a great power to fall back on when facing, say, solo soldiers or hobgoblins with Phalanx Fighter up the wazoo. +2 to hit in exchange for not adding Str to damage? Specially with low-accuracy, high damage weapons (including a few brutal ones)? Not a bad trade!


----------



## dontmazemebro (Nov 7, 2009)

I have to agree with the sentiment of the original poster.  While the powers of the Essentials articles have been much to my liking, the discussion of class features and ability score placement in these articles are borderline useless even for the greenest of players.  

For example, the "Wizard Essentials: Secrets of the Spiral Tower" contains several pages of useless information.  The discussion of the different implement mastery features is basically a rewording of the respective power's text.  Furthermore, the discussion of ability score placement is quite elementary and non-informative.


----------



## Nightson (Nov 7, 2009)

Sure Strike is overly maligned.  The power is roughly two to three points less dpr then a melee basic at decent to high chance of hitting and it is up to two points more dpr then a melee basic at very low chance of hitting.  But of course, the problem is generally the lack of riders since the other at-wills are what's being compared too.

Sure Strike offers very situational benefits which doesn't make it worth the at-will power slot you have to choose next to the other great fighter at-wills.  But it's not a worthless power.


----------



## Tallifer (Nov 7, 2009)

Whenever I read one of these articles about a class which I have actually played, I groan at the horrendous advice or shrug at the obvious tautologies.

However, whenever I read one of these articles which is about a class (_eg._ the barbarian or the warden) which neither I nor my friends have ever played or about which I have never taken the time to read, then I read with great interest: it is certainly quicker to read the article than to experiment on my own with a class.

Furthermore, while there are a few excellent amateur class guides out there (for example, for paladins, fighters, rangers and warlords), many are incomplete, out of date, badly organized, narrow in focus or sometimes even worse than one of these much maligned Essentials articles. (And, no, I could not do any better.)


----------



## avin (Nov 7, 2009)

Have to agree with OP, is that information useful for people?


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Nov 7, 2009)

I admit, I looked at these articles and thought some of the same things as the OP, although nowhere near as passionately.

Their recommendations create a character who is a lot less optimized than the average in our home group or our group of Living Forgotten Realms players.

Their recommendations don't create BAD characters...but they will be significantly less powerful than the rest of our group if they were to join us.  And we try to avoid huge optimization.

Most of the time when I read the "Class Guides" on the Char Op boards my thoughts are always the same "Some of the stuff in here is due to dubious and purposefully bad reading of the rules, ignores a bunch of perfectly valid options in exchange for the two most popular ones on the Char Op boards at the time."  In fact, a couple of them I read basically said that there were only two options that were suitably optimized.  Both of the options listed used rules that no DM I know would allow in a game.  Essentially, they were completely useless to me as a player because they relied on a section of the book that could be interpreted one of two ways...one completely reasonable and the other stupid broken.  And everyone on the Char Op boards agrees that given no official ruling, the completely broken one must be correct.

Although, I admit that putting a prime stat of less than 16 is a really bad idea for the most part.  And the articles in question recommend less than that on a regular basis.


----------



## AngryMojo (Nov 7, 2009)

Sure strike is one of those powers that actually is useful, but not to people who just want to maximize  their character's damage output.  There's a reason why it's recommended for a sword and board fighter.  Once you get to paragon, a sword and board fighter with Heavy Blade Opportunity can use sure strike as his opportunity attack.  As a sword and board fighter, you're not caring that much about damage on the opportunity attack, just hitting so you can stop the monster's movement.  Between a decent to high strength, the higher proficiency bonus from a longsword, adding your wisdom bonus to opportunity attacks, fighter weapon talent, heavy blade opportunity, combat reflexes and sure strike, you've just turned a good chance to stop an enemy's movement with an opportunity attack to a nearly guaranteed chance to stop an enemy's movement.  That's what a sword and board fighter does, and that's why they do it well.


----------



## Turtlejay (Nov 8, 2009)

I didn't want to jump in here, because of the vitriol, but I have to say that I am entertained by the articles, even if I don't have any illusions about their charop usefulness.

Charop seems to think that their mathematically tested, rules questionable way, is the only good way.  I don't think it is healthy to assume that.  I like the Essentials articles, since I don't think I or most folks assume they are there to help you break the game.  They are there to help you understand the class.  Suboptimal does not mean broken, and optimal does not guide the one true way of d & d.

Jay


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 8, 2009)

the less stength you have, the better sure strike becomes... but i wouldn´t use 15 strength...

i personally would go 16/13/14/8/14/10 take cleave and tide of iron and increase strength and wisdom for a while and maybe dex instead of wisdom later on, but starting with 15 strength and higher constitution is not so bad either... especially in a large group with many strikers, where you are not responsable for damage.

If you are a dwarf, using a big one handed axe and sure strike makes a respectable damage output, and every point of wisdom gives a great benefit. Multiclass as cleric and go for warpriest, and see how effective your axe and board fighter with sure strike suddenly becomes.

edit: sure strike is of course much better than careful strike, because it is usable without an off hand weapon and it has not to compare with twin strike on a damage dealer... these two powers are total different things (and i bet there would have been no debate at all, if there was no careful attack at all)


----------



## The Little Raven (Nov 8, 2009)

CharOp is atrocious. A forum full of people and their game-breaking theorycraft. It has little relevance to how and why people actually play the game.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Nov 8, 2009)

The Little Raven said:


> CharOp is atrocious. A forum full of people and their game-breaking theorycraft. It has little relevance to how and why people actually play the game.




WOW! That was exceptionally well said. Have an xp.


----------



## Dire Bare (Nov 8, 2009)

avin said:


> Have to agree with OP, is that information useful for people?




Since WotC isn't in the business of publishing a long series of articles on topics no one feels useful, I'd say yes.

More importantly, since several posters in this thread have already stated they found the articles useful and/or entertaining, then I'd say yes again!

If there are some who don't find the articles useful, I would say "that's great" and also "who cares".  Not every article is going to appeal to every gamer, and that doesn't make them useless or atrocious.


----------



## Nifft (Nov 8, 2009)

The Little Raven said:


> CharOp is atrocious. A forum full of people and their game-breaking theorycraft. It has little relevance to how and why people actually play the game.



 Hey. I resemble that remark.



Dire Bare said:


> Since WotC isn't in the business of publishing a long series of articles on topics no one feels useful, I'd say yes.



 WotC intends it to be useful, therefore it must be useful?

_Hmmmm_, -- N


----------



## fuzzlewump (Nov 8, 2009)

The Little Raven said:


> CharOp is atrocious. A forum full of people and their game-breaking theorycraft. It has little relevance to how and why people actually play the game.



http://community.wizards.com/charop/wiki/Fighter/handbook

I don't know about any other part, because I don't look at any other part, but CharOp puts out some great handbooks. I don't see how they are broken or irrelevant.


----------



## Shroomy (Nov 8, 2009)

IMO, they're hardly atrocious, though admittedly, I generally skim the first sections of these articles and then go right to the new crunch.  I also don't mind optimization or CharOps boards (in fact, I think the theorycraft and mathematics can be quite interesting).   What I do hate is the attitude that if you deviate even a little bit from the mathematically optimal choice, you're doing it wrong.  That quickly becomes tiresome, and unfortunately it just reinforces the worst optimizer stereotypes, which in turn, causes people to dismiss valid mathematical arguments.


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 8, 2009)

My problem with CharOp isn't the math or the theory.  I like math, and I like theory.

My problem is their issues with basic literacy.  Part of literacy is the ability to recognize when a passage of text has multiple possible meanings, and the ability to recognize multiple arguments for the various possible interpretations.  Part of literacy is recognizing different styles of writing (technical, informal, etc), and how those affect the way we should read text.

CharOp as a community is a group of people who need absolute technical precision with no ambiguities or unanswered questions.  Because they _need_ that, they have collectively come to view the world and the D&D rules in particular as _actually providing_ that.  And because insisting that the D&D rules have technical precision and a lack of ambiguity (coupled with a desire to find ways to optimize a character) often leads to results that in game would be bizarre, they rationalize that away as well.

If I want to deal with people who think that way, I can go to work.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Nov 8, 2009)

I am not a huge fan of optimizing every element down to the .5 dpr (or even the 1-2 dpr difference).  I want to have fun at the game table.  Dice can do some interesting things. 

I would agree that some of the ability array's are odd.  That said, I think the articles are interesting and I don't think that they do any disservice to players, new or old. 

It's not like they are trying to tell everyone how to play.  They're small articles offering light advice.  Some are better than the others.  But I would argue that the whole series is "atrocious".


----------



## Rechan (Nov 8, 2009)

Klaus said:


> Sure Strike is a great power to fall back on when facing, say, solo soldiers or hobgoblins with Phalanx Fighter up the wazoo. +2 to hit in exchange for not adding Str to damage? Specially with low-accuracy, high damage weapons (including a few brutal ones)? Not a bad trade!



Heh, that very situation came up in our last combat: hobgoblins using phalanx. Our fighter rolls terrible, but he managed *14 damage* with SS.

Although, honestly, Brash Assault is the better Sure Strike. It has the same +2 to attack, which grants str damage, AND additional damage equal to your con.

The drawback is combat advantage, but it's definitely a good tradeoff compared to SS.



> Have to agree with OP, is that information useful for people?



I sent the Warden article to a player who was confused by how his warden worked. Among other things, it taught him about his marking mechanic.


----------



## Rechan (Nov 8, 2009)

As a side note, I think that CharOp has _one_ real good feature that WotC is just now starting to use:

Rules troubleshooting. 

With the Class Acts wizard article, one of the designers posted in the CharOps boards with 3 optional ways to do automatic damage, and asked the CharOps guys to break them. That lead to handling the Arcane Arrow power. 

Just think, if WotC had done that a year ago, they wouldn't have had to errata the Battlerage Vigor build.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Nov 8, 2009)

Just one thing.

On the 15 strength. Yes, 15 Strength seems like a bad idea for a fighter. However, 17 strength isn't anywhere as bad. 18 is considered to be the minimum starting attack stat for most characters. In the case of a fighter that is using one of the builds with a built in +1 to hit, and sword and board is less concerned with pure damage output, so the extra damage from a high attack stat is less important. 

They could have done a better job of adressing racial modifiers and the like. The sword and board concept they were pushing may have been more effective as 16/14/14/13/10/8 (with 13 for Con) it would still give the bonus to Dex and Wis so that all the defenses were supported, and wouldn't have a huge effect on hp/surge value. And a sword and board fighterwould be aiming for shield specialization probably (or a heavy armor spec with paragon defenses), so in neither case would it need the 15 con going into the paragon tier (not to mention, the lower attack bonus would want a heavy blade over an axe or hammer, again deemphasizing con).

Still, a 15 STR for a single weapon fighter using a longsword would have a better to-hit chance than the battlerager with 16 STR.


----------



## w_earle_wheeler (Nov 8, 2009)

Adslahnit said:


> "This is what we have been waiting for. Since the khopesh is a heavy blade and an axe, we can take the Deadly Axe paragon feat and add 2d8 damage to all of our critical hits, and we can reroll 1s on that damage too!"




The khopesh is totally brutal, and therefore, is totally metal.


----------



## M.L. Martin (Nov 8, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> CharOp as a community is a group of people who need absolute technical precision with no ambiguities or unanswered questions.  Because they _need_ that, they have collectively come to view the world and the D&D rules in particular as _actually providing_ that.  And because insisting that the D&D rules have technical precision and a lack of ambiguity (coupled with a desire to find ways to optimize a character) often leads to results that in game would be bizarre, they rationalize that away as well.




  Now you've got me wondering what would happen if we airdropped a bunch of HERO System Rulebooks (4th, 5th, 5th Revised or 6th--take your pick) on CharOp. Would they go into rapture over the possibilities for character customization and detail, or would the room for GM discretion and multiple ways to build something break their minds?


----------



## EarthSeraphEdna (Nov 8, 2009)

AngryMojo said:


> Sure strike is one of those powers that actually is useful, but not to people who just want to maximize  their character's damage output.  There's a reason why it's recommended for a sword and board fighter.  Once you get to paragon, a sword and board fighter with Heavy Blade Opportunity can use sure strike as his opportunity attack.  As a sword and board fighter, you're not caring that much about damage on the opportunity attack, just hitting so you can stop the monster's movement.  Between a decent to high strength, the higher proficiency bonus from a longsword, adding your wisdom bonus to opportunity attacks, fighter weapon talent, heavy blade opportunity, combat reflexes and sure strike, you've just turned a good chance to stop an enemy's movement with an opportunity attack to a nearly guaranteed chance to stop an enemy's movement.  That's what a sword and board fighter does, and that's why they do it well.




Basic math time, people.

Level 1 sword-and-board fighter with 18 Strength and Weapon Proficiency (Bastard Sword) vs. Hobgoblin Commander, Level 5 Soldier, with Phalanx Soldier (AC 23):
Attack Bonus: +7 (4 Strength modifier + 3 proficiency)
Hit Chance (Melee Basic): 25%
Hit Chance (Sure Strike): 35%
Average Damage on a Hit (Melee Basic): 9.5
Average Damage on a Hit (Sure Strike): 5.5
Average Damage on a Swing (Melee Basic): 2.375
Average Damage on a Swing (Sure Strike): 1.925

Level 1 sword-and-board fighter with 18 Strength and Weapon Proficiency (Waraxe) vs. Hobgoblin Commander, Level 5 Soldier, with Phalanx Soldier (AC 23):
Attack Bonus: +6 (4 Strength modifier + 2 proficiency)
Hit Chance (Melee Basic): 20%
Hit Chance (Sure Strike): 30%
Average Damage on a Hit (Melee Basic): 10.5
Average Damage on a Hit (Sure Strike): 6.5
Average Damage on a Swing (Melee Basic): 2.1
Average Damage on a Swing (Sure Strike): 1.95

As you go higher in the levels, things are still stacked against Sure Strike. Oh, sure, your opportunity attacks are more accurate with them. That is wonderful. Meanwhile, the sword-and-board fighter with the wiser power selection can use Footwork Lure or Tide of Iron on an opportunity attack, stopping the enemy's movement and bringing herself and her foe to a more advantageous position, also getting to be more useful on her own turns since she has a choice between two very nice at-wills. And dealing more damage while at it too.


----------



## Runestar (Nov 8, 2009)

How exactly do the characters in these articles stack up against optimized PCs? As in, how big is the power disparity?

I can't comment since I don't subscribe and so cannot view those articles. But I used to purchase dragon magazines, which had articles on building 3e characters, and the advice was horrible. The builds were literally multiclassed to uselessness.

I do know of that one free 4e excerpt which offered advice on how to build a fighter/mage. Really terrible advice, what with taking magic missile as an encounter power and all.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Nov 8, 2009)

Adslahnit said:


> Basic math time, people.




Basic Sanity:  If playing a game requires spreadsheets, you're doing it wrong.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Nov 8, 2009)

Adslahnit said:


> Basic math time, people.
> 
> Level 1 sword-and-board fighter with 18 Strength and Weapon Proficiency (Bastard Sword) vs. Hobgoblin Commander, Level Soldier, with Phalanx Soldier (AC 23):
> Attack Bonus: +7 (4 Strength modifier + 3 proficiency)
> ...




yes that is a great way to compair powers in a vacume...but I play with real dice and real people that do not always follow probability...

example: melee basic +7 Sure strike +9... I am going for AC 20...I need an 11 or a 13...

on a 1-10 both miss on an 11 one hits the other does not, on a 12 one hits the other does not...13+ both hit.

now since my game doesn't do avrages (does anyone???) there are two numbers I can roll that make sure strike better then a basic... so if I roll an 11 on my melee basic I don't do x.x toward dpr I do NOTHING...NADA...ZILCH...ZERO

so tell me again how avrages figure out what I am going to roll? Oh they can not...in fact in order for the avrage to be seen in most games a power has to be used 2-3 hundred time...

remember my die has no memory at all...I roll 1d20 it has a 5% chance to land on any number...lets say it is a 20...my next roll has a 5% chance of beign a 20...my next roll after that has a 5% chance of being a 20... now lets say I rolled those 3 20;s in a row do you know what the odds of a 4th 20 is then? 
 5%... infact I could roll 1,000 times and never roll a 1, or a 2 or a 3...how does yor statstics handle that?


edit: I want to be clear I understand DPR is the only way to compair characters on line...but it is not a good messure in the real game. I have known plnety of hot or cold streaks that have lasted for levels (and no that is not me endorsing luck...it is just the way it is)

If your character has twin strike and mine has careful strike, and we both fight togather and you keep rolling below 10, and I keep bearly hitting guess who does more damage...me, becuse there is no miss effect on twin strike, and DPR avrages doesn't kill monsters...real damage does...hence the diffrence between theory and pratice.


----------



## Mr. Wilson (Nov 8, 2009)

Sure strike isn't much maligned.  It isn't maligned enough.  It is the worst at will Wizards has presented thus far.  I can't imagine ever using it over a basic melee attack, let alone any of the other at wills.  It is literally, that terrible of a power.

I don't like the essential articles and have stopped reading them.  They may give good explanation to mechanics, but they are not good when it comes to character building.  I agree with the OP that linking to the Char Op board handbooks would be a much better option if they're talking math and power choices.

Finding out that the Tact Lord advice doesn't even suggest taking Commander's Strike (or worse, start with 14 int!?!?!?) just reinforces my belief that the series should just be blown up.


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 8, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> yes that is a great way to compair powers in a vacume...but I play with real dice and real people that do not always follow probability...



Your dice do not follow probability???


> so tell me again how avrages figure out what I am going to roll? Oh they can not...in fact in order for the avrage to be seen in most games a power has to be used 2-3 hundred time...



Um, no.  I know its the traditional thing to do whenever someone mentions a poll or a statistical projection or something, but it doesn't actually take a very large sample size to start making statistically significant predictions or comparisons.  30 is a good number for most simple studies.  


> remember my die has no memory at all...I roll 1d20 it has a 5% chance to land on any number...lets say it is a 20...my next roll has a 5% chance of beign a 20...my next roll after that has a 5% chance of being a 20... now lets say I rolled those 3 20;s in a row do you know what the odds of a 4th 20 is then?
> 5%... infact I could roll 1,000 times and never roll a 1, or a 2 or a 3...how does yor statstics handle that?



With flawless mathematical precision?


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Nov 8, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> Your dice do not follow probability???




technicly you got me...at 2 in the morning I used the wrong word...they follow probability not statistics..




> With flawless mathematical precision?




no with real life dice bought fromt he chessex booth at gen con...

If I roll 30d20 and get no 1's, and no 4's, but 5 16's what does that mean???


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 8, 2009)

Mr. Wilson said:


> Finding out that the Tact Lord advice doesn't even suggest taking Commander's Strike (or worse, start with 14 int!?!?!?) just reinforces my belief that the series should just be blown up.



Actually, I'm pretty convinced that the "Int Uber Alles" reputation that the Tactical Warlord has is not born out by the actual class.  I'd be happy to play a tactical warlord with a 14 intelligence, especially if that 14 helped me apply points towards strength.*  You can't use Commander's Strike every round, after all.

Though Commander's Strike is kind of an obvious thing to recommend.

*In order to avoid the arms race to a 20/15/10/10/10/8 stat block, my group has agreed to always use the 16/14/13/12/11/10 array.  So a 14 intelligence would be almost inevitable unless the character were a genasi.  And based on experience with tons of other classes and characters who also use that array, things would be just fine.  I accept that this is a lesser degree of optimization than the person using the full fledged 20/15/etc array, but its quite functional and helps our group socially.


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 8, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> If I roll 30d20 and get no 1's, and no 4's, but 5 16's what does that mean???



It probably means nothing.

You can't just declare yourself exempt for probability and statistics.  Real life doesn't work like that.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Nov 8, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> *In order to avoid the arms race to a 20/15/10/10/10/8 stat block, my group has agreed to always use the 16/14/13/12/11/10 array.  So a 14 intelligence would be almost inevitable unless the character were a genasi.




if you use the 16/14/13/12/11/10 array wont any +int race make you a 16 str 16 Int tac lord though...I know my eladrin taclord was built that way.

Infact I was 16, 12, 12, 16, 11, 13 after race in that game...


----------



## Mr. Wilson (Nov 8, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> Actually, I'm pretty convinced that the "Int Uber Alles" reputation that the Tactical Warlord has is not born out by the actual class. I'd be happy to play a tactical warlord with a 14 intelligence, especially if that 14 helped me apply points towards strength.* You can't use Commander's Strike every round, after all.




Ah, see, on the other hand, I do believe and am pretty convinced that having at least equal Int and Str is the way to go (for tact lords).  Even in your stats, I would have 16 str and 16 int (assuming I played a human or eladrin, let alone a genasi).

I can patch the +hit issue with feats (expertise, WP: Bastard Sword) and CA.  Sure, you can't use Commander's Strike all the time (though I do use it the majority of the time, pairing with a barbarian is FUN), but the nova effect of LTA et al is important enough that the trade off is worth it, IME.

Of course, my party does stick closesly to me so that we may smite our foes beneath the striker's heels.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Nov 8, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> It probably means nothing.
> 
> You can't just declare yourself exempt for probability and statistics.  Real life doesn't work like that.




yes it does...statistics are not real numbers they are limited messurment of chance...

again in the long run in a perfect vacume statistics can come close to avrage...but in D&D almost none of that is true.

Let me set you an example of last tuesday night...my fighter (highest attack in the game) missed all but 3 at will attacks out of the game (yes 4 encounters I missed with all my encounter powers and my daily power)... it was 4 combat encouters and 2 skill challanges...meanwhile our 15 str cleric crited 3 times with his str at will...

by the way just becuse I find it funny I will point out my daily was reliable... and missed 4 rounds in a row in one fight, and 2 rounds in a row in a second in the same day...


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 8, 2009)

Mr. Wilson said:


> Ah, see, on the other hand, I do believe and am pretty convinced that having at least equal Int and Str is the way to go (for tact lords).  Even in your stats, I would have 16 str and 16 int (assuming I played a human or eladrin, let alone a genasi).
> 
> I can patch the +hit issue with feats (expertise, WP: Bastard Sword) and CA.  Sure, you can't use Commander's Strike all the time (though I do use it the majority of the time, pairing with a barbarian is FUN), but the nova effect of LTA et al is important enough that the trade off is worth it, IME.
> 
> Of course, my party does stick closesly to me so that we may smite our foes beneath the striker's heels.



See, I don't consider that "patching."  I consider expertise to be standard issue.  And a +3 weapon is standard issue when your shtick is hitting and inflicting conditions or bonuses rather than high damage.

It really comes down to whether you'd rather have +1 attack and damage on all of your own attacks, or +1 attack on the bonuses you grant to allies attacks.  Commander's Strike is great, but after the early heroic tier I'm pretty sure I'm going to find myself wanting the benefits on my attack rolls, since they're gatekeepers for the bonuses I give out other than those that come from Commander's Strike and from my action point ability.


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 8, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> if you use the 16/14/13/12/11/10 array wont any +int race make you a 16 str 16 Int tac lord though...I know my eladrin taclord was built that way.
> 
> Infact I was 16, 12, 12, 16, 11, 13 after race in that game...



Yes, but I'm more likely to reach for a race with a strength bonus, unless I know I'm only going to be playing from levels 1 to 6 or so.


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 8, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> yes it does...statistics are not real numbers they are limited messurment of chance...
> 
> again in the long run in a perfect vacume statistics can come close to avrage...but in D&D almost none of that is true.
> 
> ...



No, statistics is a _perfec_t measurement of chance.  Its just that chance includes variance around a prediction.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Nov 8, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> No, statistics is a _perfec_t measurement of chance.  Its just that chance includes variance around a prediction.




so in you mind if I play a fighter with +8 to hit and 1d8+9 damage, and you play a fighter with +8 to hit and 1d8+9 damage after 1 fight we will be equaly effective...

or can that variance you mentioned matter?

what if I play a fighter that has +8 to hit and 1d8+9 damage and roll, 18, 17, 16, 16, 19, 20, 15, 17, 20, 14, 18, 12
and you play a fighter that has +9 to hit and 2d6(brutal 1)+12 damage, but roll 1, 7, 5, 4, 9, 14, 12, 17, 11, 1, 9, 13, 7

if you need a 12 to hit, and I need a 13 to hit you would hit 4 times with no crits, and I hit 9 times pluse 2 crits...

so if I roll my 9 damage rolls ad get 10,10, 14, 15, 17, 16, 11, 10, 13 then my two cirts I do 17 and 17
Your 4 hits are for 20, 19, 23, and 24... 

over the cource of the fighte I did mutch more damage, but you have tghe higher DPR...notice the impact you made on the game is not equal tot he statistics...


edit: DPR only works in theory, in real games with all the modfires and tactics, and dice varraints there is far more going on then those statistics show...so again WotC does not subscribe to the same theory of character design the Char op board does...it does not make them bad builds...


----------



## Freakohollik (Nov 8, 2009)

Looking through that link to the CharOp board someone posted upthread, I've gotta say I am sure wizards wasted their time writing that article. I'm not a subscriber, so I haven't read it, but I remember some articles like this coming out towards the end of 3.5. Articles that were supposed to tell you how to build your character, but had no information that couldn't be obtained from the PHB.

The guy(s) who wrote the CharOp post clearly put a lot of effort into it and made a good guide. And most of the criticisms leveled at the CharOp board in this thread are not present in the better guides there.

I can hardly believe somebody here is arguing that the mathematical comparison between characters isn't a valid way to compare the power of characters. Yeah in game decisions and actual dice rolls matter, but a person will have more success with the optimized character than with the non-optimized character.


----------



## AllisterH (Nov 8, 2009)

Runestar said:


> How exactly do the characters in these articles stack up against optimized PCs? As in, how big is the power disparity?
> 
> I can't comment since I don't subscribe and so cannot view those articles. But I used to purchase dragon magazines, which had articles on building 3e characters, and the advice was horrible. The builds were literally multiclassed to uselessness.
> 
> I do know of that one free 4e excerpt which offered advice on how to build a fighter/mage. Really terrible advice, what with taking magic missile as an encounter power and all.




Let me put it this way....

IMO, if you followed the advice of any of the Essential guides, you're probably looking at maybe 1 or 2 more rounds of combat.

To put it in 3e speak:

We're not talking about a 10/10 fighter/wizard being in a level 20 party but more like say a 17/3 wizard/fighter (or fighter/wizard) in a level 20 party. Those 3 levels are kind of like dead levels except for niche cases but at the same time, you're not actually a detriment to the party as the 10/10 fighter/wizard is.


----------



## Nightson (Nov 8, 2009)

Mr. Wilson said:


> I can't imagine ever using it over a basic melee attack, let alone any of the other at wills.  It is literally, that terrible of a power.




Against an enemy that are hard to hit depending on what portion your strength bonus is of your static modifiers.
When attacking with an OA after getting heavy blade opportunity.
When the enemy less health then you have static damage modifiers.

All situations in which Sure Strike outperforms a melee basic attack


----------



## fuzzlewump (Nov 8, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> what if I play a fighter that has +8 to hit and 1d8+9 damage and roll, 18, 17, 16, 16, 19, 20, 15, 17, 20, 14, 18, 12
> and you play a fighter that has +9 to hit and 2d6(brutal 1)+12 damage, but roll 1, 7, 5, 4, 9, 14, 12, 17, 11, 1, 9, 13, 7
> 
> if you need a 12 to hit, and I need a 13 to hit you would hit 4 times with no crits, and I hit 9 times pluse 2 crits...
> ...



Wait, you just made up numbers. Try flipping a coin. You described a situation where you flipped heads 12 times in a row (rolled an 11 or above 12 times in a row.) Every time you flip it's a 50% chance of one or the other, I agree. That _does not mean_ it's a 50% chance to flip 12 heads in a row. Don't believe me? Try flipping a coin 12 times. If I could see you flip them and give you the coin, I would give you a thousand dollars to see you flip heads 12 times in a row. I'm just that confident that it's not going to happen. How am I so confident? Either it's wizardry or _*statistics*. _

Imagine you had the choice between a weighted coin and a normal coin. The weighted coin made heads come up more often. Then you flip a normal coin 5 times and the weighted coin 5 times, and the normal coin came up with more heads. Would you _really_ think at that point that the weighted coin is worthless, assuming it was made correctly to come up with heads more often?

Since you think that averages don't matter, you might as well use a weapon you aren't proficient with. Who cares about the profiency bonus? It all comes down to the dice roll which for you seems to roll extremely well. Hey, might as well dump your main stat too, who needs it? How about 10's down the line? If you disagree with this sentiment, then you admit to seeing the value of statistics.


----------



## cwhs01 (Nov 8, 2009)

"Why does confirmation bias allways happen to me" 

and also

I saw an episode of the daily show where a physics teacher (an american ofcourse), posited that the CERN large hadron collider had a 50/50 chance of creating a black hole. His reasoning was something like this: "either it creates a black hole or it doesn't = 50% chance of a black hole".

probability and statistics... so many ways to misunderstand.


----------



## Alzrius (Nov 8, 2009)

Charwoman Gene said:


> Basic Sanity:  If playing a game requires spreadsheets, you're doing it wrong.




Basic Courtesy: If you tell someone their way of playing a game is wrong, you're wrong.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 8, 2009)

Basic Rules of the Boards: If you tell someone that the way they like to play the game is wrong, you're probably being rude.

I mean, if someone came in and said he was having problems in combat because he never rolled high numbers, and it turned out he was rolling a ham sandwich instead of a d20, you might be able to get away with it. But really, folks, nobody should need to be reminded that while you can say that a given playstyle isn't right for yourself, you don't get to declare it for others.

You don't like Character Optimization?  Fine. It isn't "wrong" in an objective sense, though.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 8, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> No, statistics is a _perfec_t measurement of chance.  Its just that chance includes variance around a prediction.




You really want to nitpick?  Fine.

While you can come up with averages out of statistics, the number of rolls that one particular character makes in combat is relatively small - small sample sizes are prone to large variance from the expected values.

Ergo, your statistics may not be evident in one person's particular play experience.  Whether the dice "follow probability" isn't really the point - the fact that one might build a character based on a statistical model, and have performance at the table that does not match the model is the point.

Try to not let failure to use technical language properly get in the way of getting to the real point under discussion.


----------



## Tav_Behemoth (Nov 8, 2009)

Having co-written the Warden Essentials article, I'm interested in how the series is perceived. Here are some things I can say:

1) The comparison with video game guides is inappropriate because a guide doesn't alter the way the video game functions. As others have pointed out, the Essentials add new options for each class, so it's as if the video game guide came with a bunch of downloadable add-ons. Also, the Essentials can clarify aspects of the rules, so it's like a guide + a patch or revision. I know that reading the CharOps guides, one often gets bogged down in differing interpretations of the rules. Having the Essentials article support one interpretation helps clarify the situation because DDI is official content and goes through review by the developers for accuracy. I know that I found it useful to see which things I said in my original manuscript that did or didn't pass official review.

2) Of the six Essentials that have been published, only one of them has been by someone who is part of the Wizards staff (Logan Bonner); the others are the work of freelancers. WotC's internal play culture seems unlikely to be a global influence; certainly I didn't see any edits to my piece that I felt was related to this.

3) Dunno about the other authors, but I know that I used the CharOps board & guides as part of my research in writing the Warden Essentials. It served as a great resource for ideas and things to think about, but I spent plenty of time decoding the jargon, considering the assumptions, resolving contradictions between the viewpoints of different posters, and considering how the issues raised there would drive the design of the new powers, feats, and paragon path for the class. As a result, I don't think it's an either-or situation. The CharOps guides are more in-depth, both in that they assume a higher level of user savvy and in that they comprehensively evaluate specific options at each level. The Essentials are more new-reader-friendly, offer new content, and can provide an official perspective on rules interpretations.


----------



## Woas (Nov 8, 2009)

The Little Raven said:


> CharOp is atrocious. A forum full of people and their game-breaking theorycraft. It has little relevance to how and why people actually play the game.




That's really the crux of the problem as I see it too.


----------



## EarthSeraphEdna (Nov 8, 2009)

Tav_Behemoth said:


> 1) The comparison with video game guides is inappropriate because a guide doesn't alter the way the video game functions. As others have pointed out, the Essentials add new options for each class, so it's as if the video game guide came with a bunch of downloadable add-ons. Also, the Essentials can clarify aspects of the rules, so it's like a guide + a patch or revision.




As was stated in the OP post, Class Acts exists just for that. By filling in pages of an issue of Dragon Magazine with superfluous advice and dubious recommended powers and ability score arrays, room for player crunch, something that is of higher demand, is taken away.



Tav_Behemoth said:


> I know that reading the CharOps guides, one often gets bogged down in differing interpretations of the rules. Having the Essentials article support one interpretation helps clarify the situation because DDI is official content and goes through review by the developers for accuracy. I know that I found it useful to see which things I said in my original manuscript that did or didn't pass official review.




Rules debates take place in their own threads on CharOp, whether it is about whether or not a Radiant Weapon can add radiant damage to an implement attack or about whether or not Polearm Momentum triggers with a push 1 and a slide 1 from the Mark of Storm. This stays out of the CharOp Handbooks. Go through the ones in linked in the opening post and you shall see that they are not bogged down in niggling rules interpretations.



Tav_Behemoth said:


> 2) Of the six Essentials that have been published, only one of them has been by someone who is part of the Wizards staff (Logan Bonner); the others are the work of freelancers. WotC's internal play culture seems unlikely to be a global influence; certainly I didn't see any edits to my piece that I felt was related to this.




The low quality of these Essential articles overall is a sign of how hiring freelancers is simply not working out for Dragon Magazine.



Tav_Behemoth said:


> 3) Dunno about the other authors, but I know that I used the CharOps board & guides as part of my research in writing the Warden Essentials. It served as a great resource for ideas and things to think about, but I spent plenty of time decoding the jargon, considering the assumptions, resolving contradictions between the viewpoints of different posters, and considering how the issues raised there would drive the design of the new powers, feats, and paragon path for the class. As a result, I don't think it's an either-or situation.




I shall concede, however, that the Warden Essentials article is the most tolerable Essentials article of them all. It is not hampered by questionable analyses of the builds of a class, such as the Fighter Essentials article which seriously believes that the Great Weapon Fighter is its own build (rather than a Battlerager variant) and which utterly disregards the existence of the very distinct Polearm Fighter build.



Tav_Behemoth said:


> The CharOps guides are more in-depth, both in that they assume a higher level of user savvy and in that they comprehensively evaluate specific options at each level. The Essentials are more new-reader-friendly, offer new content, and can provide an official perspective on rules interpretations.




That does not excuse how the Essential articles aim to give solid advice, yet fail to do so. Really, change the recommended ability score spreads for, say, warlords into 16/16/12/12/10/8 spreads, and they are no harder to grasp, yet much more sensible.



Woas said:


> That's really the crux of the problem as I see it too.




Have a look at the handbooks linked in the first post. Do you see any "game-breaking theorycraft" in them?


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 8, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> so in you mind if I play a fighter with +8 to hit and 1d8+9 damage, and you play a fighter with +8 to hit and 1d8+9 damage after 1 fight we will be equaly effective...
> 
> or can that variance you mentioned matter?



What?

Of course the variance matters.  It just...

Look.  Just...

It seems to me that you are saying this: that statistics may make predictions, but that variance is so high and the sample size so small that these predictions are not useful in terms of people's actual experiences at the table.

This is not true.

First of all, the variance is not as high as you think.  It doesn't take hundreds of attack rolls to start matching the predictions pretty well, it takes a few dozen.

Second, even if the die rolls at the table don't exactly match the predictions, the predictions are still useful and important because they tells us the shape of what we should expect to see as the die rolls vary. 

Let me give you an example- lets say we had a raffle.  There are thirty ENWorlders in the raffle, and everyone has one ticket, except me.  I have two tickets.  So everyone has a 1/31 chance of winning the raffle, except me- I have a 2/31 chance.

Now it would take us dozens of raffles to start to show that I have twice the chance of winning as the rest of you have.  And there's a fair chance that some lucky guy will get drawn two or three times, totally obscuring my better odds.

But I STILL have twice the chance that you all do!  Two tickets are STILL twice as good as one ticket!  Even if we only do one raffle, and there's no chance at all of demonstrating experimentally the accuracy of the prediction that I have a 2/31ths chance of winning, that's still what I had.

The predictions don't stop mattering because the sample size is small.  2 is still twice 1.


----------



## pauljathome (Nov 8, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> No, statistics is a _perfec_t measurement of chance.  Its just that chance includes variance around a prediction.




While this is quite true, its probably worth pointing out that the way that
most gamers roll dice is NOT really completely random.

There is a reason that in games where it really matters (eg, games like craps and backgammon where money can be involved) that you don't get to just
sort of drop the dice onto the table.

And thats leaving out the outright cheating that occurs 

Its very possibly just observational bias but I seem to see less runs of hot 
and cold dice with those players that are using their phone or some other
electronic means to "roll dice"


----------



## Garthanos (Nov 8, 2009)

Nightson said:


> Against an enemy that are hard to hit depending on what portion your strength bonus is of your static modifiers.
> When attacking with an OA after getting heavy blade opportunity.
> When the enemy less health then you have static damage modifiers.
> 
> All situations in which Sure Strike outperforms a melee basic attack




Add when the DM's favor large numbers of minion class enemies.(and uses them intelligently  not just giving in to the temptation to clump them) ... I know it is a specific instance of your last item but it is actually a very possible and plannable one from the dms point of view...  Sometimes I like to plan encounters which play to my players characters strengths.


----------



## pauljathome (Nov 8, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> What?
> 
> Of course the variance matters.  It just...
> 
> .




To give a simpler example. Lets take 2 powers, both level 1 at wills for the same class.

Power 1 : Weapon
Str + 2 vs AC 3D6 + STR damage

Power 2 : Weapon
STR vs AC, 2D6 + Str damage.

On any particular set of dice rolls the second power may average more
damage. If you only do 1 swing the odds aren't even all that bad.

Which power would you choose?


----------



## Garthanos (Nov 8, 2009)

Nightson said:


> All situations in which Sure Strike outperforms a melee basic attack




The key issue is that it is actually not competing with an mba but rather other at-wills including brash strike and company


----------



## Nifft (Nov 8, 2009)

pauljathome said:


> To give a simpler example. Lets take 2 powers, both level 1 at wills for the same class.
> 
> Power 1 : Weapon
> Str + 2 vs AC 3D6 + STR damage
> ...



 The second one, obviously, because STR for attack clearly indicates shouting during the attack roll (rather than shouting only on a hit), and my character is totally like that.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Garthanos (Nov 8, 2009)

Umbran said:


> the fact that one might build a character based on a statistical model, and have performance at the table that does not match the model is the point.




In old fashioned not so jargon sounding terms.
May and might and could and can.... does not change what is "likely."

The point is pretty feeble in my opinion... measurement of likelihood seem a dominant decision driver amongst sentient beings.

There are far better points that don't run contrary to basic thinking (....  situational use of abilities can allow some abilities to shine.)


----------



## Umbran (Nov 8, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> First of all, the variance is not as high as you think.  It doesn't take hundreds of attack rolls to start matching the predictions pretty well, it takes a few dozen.




Do remember that the average you may see after a few dozen rolls is not - "generally I do about average", but is instead likely to be some notable highs and lows - in terms of perception and actual effect in game, those are not the same thing.

I think character advancement also has an impact on the perception.  You've typically got a dozen or so encounters before you level up, right?  A few rolls per combat - so you only just get that few dozen rolls before the character, _changes_, altering the statistics and performance again.





> Second, even if the die rolls at the table don't exactly match the predictions, the predictions are still useful and important because they tells us the shape of what we should expect to see as the die rolls vary.




The statistics are good for design, QA, stress-testing, and setting some base expectations.

But I think many folks say, "the variances will be small, so we won't worry about them", but I think they are missing a major point.  There's tens of thousands of players out there - which means the distribution will get thoroughly filled out.  Yes, most will see average performance.  But the tails of low and high performance will be filled out too.  And human perception notes extremes more strongly than nominal behavior.

Thus, in some senses, what happens when things go wrong is _more important_ than what happens when things follow expectations.


----------



## Garthanos (Nov 8, 2009)

A sword and board fighter who was worried  about missing could have brash strike recommended to them... they should note that getting the enemy to attack them is a good thing for a defender and that they have more hit points and that shield gives them defense they can afford to trade off for.
what about when offering CA feels to much (you dont want that vampire to sneak in his blood drain do you)?
Then the sword and board fighter who was worried about missing all the time should have reaping strike recommended to them... what if they were worried about missing minions then they ought to take cleave.

One has to go far down on the list even for those trying to avoid ... negatives... before you pick sure strike. 

Advice needs to follow likely things and provide reasoning for alternatives .... or be very rationally labelled bad and or inadequate advice. 

I havent read all the articles but found some of the recommendations "unreasoned" ... making them less useful than reading EnWorld or CharOpt articles(specifically the handbook articles).


----------



## catsclaw227 (Nov 8, 2009)

Adslahnit said:


> The low quality of these Essential articles overall is a sign of how hiring freelancers is simply not working out for Dragon Magazine.



Your perceived low quality of the Essential articles has nothing to do with the use of freelancers by WOTC.  By this reasoning, are you saying that hiring freelance authors like Ari Marmell is not working out for WotC?

Now it just sounds like you are taking digs at WotC for no reason.


----------



## Shroomy (Nov 8, 2009)

catsclaw227 said:


> Your perceived low quality of the Essential articles has nothing to do with the use of freelancers by WOTC.  By this reasoning, are you saying that hiring freelance authors like Ari Marmell is not working out for WotC?
> 
> Now it just sounds like you are taking digs at WotC for no reason.




Even more interesting is that most of those freelancers are also the same people who worked on the sourcebooks.


----------



## EarthSeraphEdna (Nov 8, 2009)

catsclaw227 said:


> Your perceived low quality of the Essential articles has nothing to do with the use of freelancers by WOTC.  By this reasoning, are you saying that hiring freelance authors like Ari Marmell is not working out for WotC?




Hiring freelance authors has resulted in far less than stellar Essentials articles for Dragon Magazine, so yes, I would reason that this is not working out for the publication.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Nov 8, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> What?
> 
> Of course the variance matters.  It just...
> 
> Look.  Just...




of cource the variance matters...and I don't belive the variance is what people claim it is...


my dice are not las vegas standards (maybe yours are, if so please tell me where to get those d20's) my table is not vegas standard...and guess what even those standards are withing a few thousands of perfect... All the PCs in my game except that every die is slightly off...and on top of that our rolling ways lead to sertian outcomes...90% of the time it is close enough... but if player A has a die roll method + mal formed d20 that edges low it might look like 
7% 1, 5% 2 5% 3, 8% 4 10% 5 3% 6 3% 7 8% 8...and so on with a 1% 20.... guess what the dpr happens when that person sits with someone of the reverse, BUT the one with the 'better' rolls has a lower dpr...but still does more damge.






> It seems to me that you are saying this: that statistics may make predictions, but that variance is so high and the sample size so small that these predictions are not useful in terms of people's actual experiences at the table.




This is not true. Infact it is you with this all or nothing approch...I think the avrages serve a good portion of the theory, but practice comes into play too... you make it sound like "math says X so that ends this" when I feel the math is only the begiing... Now I will be honnest I suggest twin strike over carefulstrike... but there is no twin strike for fighter... especily not with two handed weapons



> First of all, the variance is not as high as you think.  It doesn't take hundreds of attack rolls to start matching the predictions pretty well, it takes a few dozen.




wrong... for the avrage to matter it takes on avrage 10 times the maximiam number to show the true avrages...so about 200...



> Second, even if the die rolls at the table don't exactly match the predictions, the predictions are still useful and important because they tells us the shape of what we should expect to see as the die rolls vary.




It is a way to discuse in a vacume...but not the only way to compair...



> Let me give you an example- lets say we had a raffle.  There are thirty ENWorlders in the raffle, and everyone has one ticket, except me.  I have two tickets.  So everyone has a 1/31 chance of winning the raffle, except me- I have a 2/31 chance.
> 
> Now it would take us dozens of raffles to start to show that I have twice the chance of winning as the rest of you have.  And there's a fair chance that some lucky guy will get drawn two or three times, totally obscuring my better odds.
> 
> But I STILL have twice the chance that you all do!  Two tickets are STILL twice as good as one ticket!  Even if we only do one raffle, and there's no chance at all of demonstrating experimentally the accuracy of the prediction that I have a 2/31ths chance of winning, that's still what I had.




lets take your example you have 2/31 I have 1/31... if I win 5 and you win 1, and this is out of 100 raffles... then most people would say I got lucky...or that was odd...but it doesn't stop the fact that I won 5 to your one...if your perfect dpr build rolls low



> The predictions don't stop mattering because the sample size is small.  2 is still twice 1.




and the odds are meaningless the result is what matters...


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Nov 8, 2009)

Adslahnit said:


> Hiring freelance authors has resulted in far less than stellar Essentials articles for Dragon Magazine, so yes, I would reason that this is not working out for the publication.




I disagree...and since a few of those freelancers are here on this site I want them to know some of us like there work... keep up the good articles boys


----------



## fuzzlewump (Nov 8, 2009)

Umbran said:


> I think character advancement also has an impact on the perception.  You've typically got a dozen or so encounters before you level up, right?  A few rolls per combat - so you only just get that few dozen rolls before the character, _changes_, altering the statistics and performance again.



No statistics altering, I think we're talking about a d20 rolls here. Those will happen in combat, out of combat, anytime. The only threat to what you're deeming as "your statistics" when responding to Cadfan is an unfair die. 

If you rolled a d20 twice, ever, and they were both 20's, would you then conclude that any bonus to attack you've achieved with weapons, stats, various items, and feats useless? Is it clear you have no need for them since you're on a 'hot steak?'

EDIT: Haha, steak. Guess I'm hungry!

Those who disagree with "CharOp," which is just running the numbers, should also disagree with using weapons they are proficient with, putting a high number in their main stat, getting combat advantage, and getting feats that improve accuracy. If the dice is all that matters, why even bother with anything that improves chances if you don't believe that your dice is going to roll fairly? I would have trouble believing anyone who claims to avoid those things I listed and also claims to do better than the most 'optimized' build.


----------



## fuzzlewump (Nov 8, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> and the odds are meaningless the result is what matters...



So, you avoid combat advantage, weapon expertise, weapon proficiency bonus, high main stat because "odds are meaningless"? You can't have both at the same time. Either you avoid things that improve your odds because they are "meaningless" or you see value in the odds. Which is it?

Oh, one more thing. Check out GameScience dice, they are claimed to roll more like casino dice. I got some, and they look nice if nothing else, I haven't exactly 'tested' them for probability.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bR2fxoNHIuU


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 8, 2009)

fuzzlewump- Technically, Umbran is talking about people's perception of their character's performance, not their character's actual performance.  He's saying that your character changes so often that it mentally "resets" in your mind, causing you to feel like you have many small, insignificant samples of attack rolls instead of one large, significant sample that composes your character's entire career.

And I should probably note, I don't actually like CharOp.   I think they focus with monomaniacal zeal on single aspects of a character (like maximizing damage, or AC, but never balancing both), because that lets them make better comparisons.  And while they're great with numbers, they tend to be not so great with words.

Occasionally that means its fun to poke at them, I had a good time pointing out to everyone that their allegedly objective, inarguable interpretation of the flight rules allowed for floating rhinoceri, but questionable rules interpretations do limit the usefulness of some of their work.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Nov 8, 2009)

fuzzlewump said:


> So, you avoid combat advantage, weapon expertise, weapon proficiency bonus, high main stat because "odds are meaningless"? You can't have both at the same time. Either you avoid things that improve your odds because they are "meaningless" or you see value in the odds. Which is it?




see again you guys try this all or nothing thing... 

I take combat advantage when I can, but if I don't have it I don't flip... I take weapon expertise if it is what I am looking for, but not with every character, I do generaly only use weapons I am proficiency in, and I almost always start with a 16 in my prime stat and up I up it more often then not...

Why would I HAVE to  ovide these things? Oh becuse it is all or nothing. 

see this is the diffrence between optimized and not... I play for the fun of it. I have even played a Dwarf fighter that started with a 15 str and weilded an AXE... and at level 16 I did not have expertise... my two at wills where Duil strike, and the invgrating at will... I fought with 2 war axes. and wore leather armor

edit: I also multi into cleric for some wisdom attacks


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 8, 2009)

GM- he's fixating on your constant use of the word "meaningless."  He's saying that if you believe that the odds are "meaningless" you wouldn't spend time pursuing better odds.

Essentially he's reading your very all or nothing language, and taking you at face value.

As for what you "have" to do... You don't "have" to do anything.  You can play however you want.  But when you tell me that the odds are "meaningless" because what matters is results, I'm going to constantly point out that the results are dictated by the odds, and that there's no black box between "odds going in" and "results coming out" that makes the former suddenly irrelevant.  Play how you like, but don't try to tell me that the math of the game doesn't affect your experience at the table.  Obviously it does.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 8, 2009)

sure strike is the best at will to get rid of a single minion with least risk to harm yourself...

and careful attack is the worst at will, because it compares to twin strike and is strictly worse.

About the math: 30 rolls... the minimum to apply statistics. Lesser number of rolls and all you remember are the few hits with high damage... how you got there doesn´t matter...


----------



## WalterKovacs (Nov 8, 2009)

Adslahnit said:


> Hiring freelance authors has resulted in far less than stellar Essentials articles for Dragon Magazine, so yes, I would reason that this is not working out for the publication.




There is some subpar (in your opinion) work ... therefore the entire venture is a failure. Goodbye baby, we need to get rid of this bathwater ASAP.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Nov 8, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> GM- he's fixating on your constant use of the word "meaningless."  He's saying that if you believe that the odds are "meaningless" you wouldn't spend time pursuing better odds.



 the odds are only meaningless in the aftermath...AKA you have double my chance to win...but I win more then twice as much as you...how does it make you feel better that you had better chances???

As for what you "have" to do... You don't "have" to do anything.  You can play however you want.  But when you tell me that the odds are "meaningless" because what matters is results, I'm going to constantly point out that the results are dictated by the odds, and that there's no black box between "odds going in" and "results coming out" that makes the former suddenly irrelevant.  Play how you like, but don't try to tell me that the math of the game doesn't affect your experience at the table.  Obviously it does.[/QUOTE]

but you are saying X at will is better then Y...becuse on avragre X does 1.8 dpr better...

keep in mind a sure strike hits more often for less damage, the melee basic hits less often for more damage... so they are diffrent. 

I do wish the power was slightly diffrent, but there are times a fighter might want that power...


----------



## Garthanos (Nov 8, 2009)

UngeheuerLich said:


> sure strike is the best at will to get rid of a single minion with least risk to harm yourself...




Right it has a "very narrow" window of usefulness and recommending it with out serious explanation of that kind of thing is irresponsible...  plus placing much importance on "least harm to yourself" ... is not necessarily what you want to encourage in somebody learning.. the archetype is a defender.
You want to make sure you don't have an ally like a striker helping you.. because you are defending yourself so much better than you are defending him allowing the combat advantage may be the better option ... even if you are risking more harm to yourself it is a team game now.



UngeheuerLich said:


> and careful attack is the worst at will, because it compares to twin strike and is strictly worse.




Yup but sure strike has no reason to be compared to it.... unless one is building a hybrid or multiclass character.


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 8, 2009)

It should also be noted that, if your goal is killing minions, Cleave is probably a better choice.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 8, 2009)

Ok, so its the worst for the fighter. I actually agree.

Team game... i allow them to hit me better is not what i think is a good idea in a team game sry. I rather push him aways from my mate or punish him when he attacks my teammate.
My damage output raises to striker level, when i am not beeing attacked. the striker also needs to be hit sometimes or you are doing your job for just one encounter per day and you are becoming a liability for your team. AKA as healing sponge. 

AC of strikers is 16 at least at lvl 1. Fighters AC with shield is 19. And i am not willing to use brash strike to get back to a lower overall defense than i would have with a great weapon. I would only using it on a two handed weapon build where i don´t really care about defense.

Your playstyle can be different, but don´t tell new players it is a good idea to be easier to be hit as defender...


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 8, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> It should also be noted that, if your goal is killing minions, Cleave is probably a better choice.



I spoke explicitely of a single minion. So your comment is actually wrong.


----------



## fuzzlewump (Nov 8, 2009)

I think I misread Umbran's post, I'm still not quite sure what he was trying to say, but thanks for the correction.



GMforPowergamers said:


> the odds are only meaningless in the aftermath...AKA you have double my chance to win...but I win more then twice as much as you...how does it make you feel better that you had better chances???



What? So, if you had the choice between the two, double chances or normal chances, you would pick normal chances because it's only results that matter?

Also, what is this notion that people who optimize characters don't play for the fun of it? Does playing a Fighter with 15 strength make things more fun for you somehow then the next guy who has a fighter with 17 strength?

The reason I'm using all-or-nothing terminology, as Cadfan pointed out, is because you're the one who is using it. Either the odds matter or the don't. Pick one. You seemed to have picked that they do matter, but only to a certain point? Why do odds stop mattering? Like Cadfan is arguing, Odds produce results. There is no Black Box between the two.

Well, in any case, good gaming to everyone, I think there is no more to be discussed.


----------



## Garthanos (Nov 8, 2009)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Your playstyle can be different, but don´t tell new players it is a good idea to be easier to be hit as defender...




Being the worst choice to hit can be a defender failure too... over defensiveness is a likely failing of a new player in my experience. 
With more than enemy around being more common than the isolated minion... and being only able to play your "dont attack my friends" extra hit once.

Shrug there are extremes in both directions...

The granting combat advantage against the single minion if the difference is 3 i am still slightly harder to hit... and when the enemy isnt a minion a fact I might not know.... I am more potent against them too.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Nov 8, 2009)

fuzzlewump said:


> I think I misread Umbran's post, I'm still not quite sure what he was trying to say, but thanks for the correction.
> 
> What? So, if you had the choice between the two, double chances or normal chances, you would pick normal chances because it's only results that matter?



 I would take what came and be happy with it... becuse twice the odds are still odds not assured. I wont turn down another ticket, but I wont say my odds are bad without it...



> Also, what is this notion that people who optimize characters don't play for the fun of it? Does playing a Fighter with 15 strength make things more fun for you somehow then the next guy who has a fighter with 17 strength?




It depeends... sometimes I play with the 17 some times I play with the 15 it depends on the build... why does a 15 make it less fun then the 17?




> The reason I'm using all-or-nothing terminology, as Cadfan pointed out, is because you're the one who is using it. Either the odds matter or the don't.



 why is it either or?



> Pick one. You seemed to have picked that they do matter, but only to a certain point? Why do odds stop mattering? Like Cadfan is arguing, Odds produce results. There is no Black Box between the two.




there IS a black box. You have a 99% chance of winning and I have a 1% chance... if I win explain that...there is the black box.  It only matters so much, at some point you have to stop playing the odds. examples again are when you argue about 2 or 3 pts of DPR... really when it is that close why can't I use other critria...like prefrence, and coolness, and concept... 



> Well, in any case, good gaming to everyone, I think there is no more to be discussed.




great way to try to get the last word...


----------



## The Little Raven (Nov 8, 2009)

BREAKING NEWS: Jaded forum-goers that overanalyze every rule change and statement from game companies to find layers of hidden meaning don't find beginner-focused articles useful! Full story at 11!


----------



## Garthanos (Nov 8, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I would take what came and be happy with it... becuse twice the odds are still odds not assured. I wont turn down another ticket, but I wont say my odds are bad without it...




Being half of what they could be if you do take the ticket.... is a hard to argue "not bad" extreme when taken in direct comparison.


----------



## Klaus (Nov 8, 2009)

Sure Strike is the attack power you want if:
- You are facing a foe with high AC, like a solo monster of a level greater than yours (say, a Fighter 1 vs. a 4th level dragon).
- You have a low-accuracy weapon with a high damage die (say, an executioner axe).

Add to this the Exotic Weapon Fighting feat to add another +2 or +3 to damage with a Sure Striking exotic weapon and you have a neat combo. Plus, if you wield an two-handed weapon, the bonus from Sure Strike can offset the penalty from Power Attack, adding a bit more punch.


----------



## Garthanos (Nov 8, 2009)

Maybe at WOTC they use a lot of minions in very tactical spread out and appearing in waves ... awesome I approve and want to see more encounters that feature this.

Sure strike actually starts becoming better say if your chances have started lagging seriously behind monster defenses let's suppose during epic tier, and monsters start having good chances of hurting you so that granting combat advantage might not be a "no big deal".

Recommendations without reasoning are just so much less useful


----------



## Garthanos (Nov 8, 2009)

The Little Raven said:


> BREAKING NEWS: Jaded forum-goers that overanalyze every rule change and statement from game companies to find layers of hidden meaning don't find beginner-focused articles useful! Full story at 11!




heheh

Beginning player articles need more not less explanations and so ... statements without whys are considered bad form... news at 11.


----------



## The Little Raven (Nov 8, 2009)

Garthanos said:


> Beginning player articles need more not less explanations and so ... statements without whys are considered bad form...




I disagree. Information glut is a huge problem with beginning players, especially one with access to DDI and its overwhelming number of character options. When learning this game, most adult players I've inducted have wanted to get a bit of information on what would be good for them to do (without the why) so they can jump in and learn on the go.


----------



## Runestar (Nov 8, 2009)

I am fairly sure that the CO board members could write articles that are intuitive and easy to understanding, without compromising on the integrity of the builds. 

If the beginning players (supposedly the target audience) are going to take the advice inside at face value, then may as well ensure that the information contained within is of highest quality, right?

The thing is, even without mathematical proof, if I am to choose between 2 characters, both of which are almost identical but one has a slightly better attack rating due to better optimisation of feats, why wouldn't I take the better one? I certainly see no reason to say no to better stats overall.


----------



## EarthSeraphEdna (Nov 8, 2009)

I believe that the quality of the Warlord Essentials article can, despite all of the other subtle, yet horrendous recommendations and analyses that its writer makes, such as suggesting Commander's Strike for an Inspiring Presence warlord, stating that a Tactical Presence warlord is somehow a "secondary defender", noting down Viper's Strike and Wolf Pack Tactics as the two at-wills for a Tactical Presence warlord, emphasizing that a Tactical Presence warlord should strive for heavier and heavier armor proficiencies (instead of sticking to hide), and stating that a reach weapon should only be secondary (they got it right on 116 of Martial Power in saying that polearms are probably the most optimal weapons for a warlord, so there is no excuse for this), be summarized by one quote:



> An inspiring warlord is not a front-line warrior, but instead commands from behind, urging allies into action, shepherding them to victory.




It is statements such as this that show that WotC really does not know what it is doing with these Essentials articles. For comparison, the second sentence of the warlord section of the Player's Handbook:



> Warlords stand on the front line issuing commands and bolstering their allies while leading the battle with weapon in hand.


----------



## Garthanos (Nov 8, 2009)

The Little Raven said:


> I disagree. Information glut is a huge problem with beginning players, especially one with access to DDI and its overwhelming number of character options. When learning this game, most adult players I've inducted have wanted to get a bit of information on what would be good for them to do (without the why) so they can jump in and learn on the go.




Information that doesnt target their characters core concept maybe...we arent talking about that... and the people I have run in to still want to decide.. if they just want it built for them... having character builder do it for them is sufficient.


----------



## Nahat Anoj (Nov 9, 2009)

Adslahnit said:


> I believe that the quality of the Warlord Essentials article can, despite all of the other subtle, yet horrendous recommendations and analyses that its writer makes, such as suggesting Commander's Strike for an Inspiring Presence warlord, stating that a Tactical Presence warlord is somehow a "secondary defender", noting down Viper's Strike and Wolf Pack Tactics as the two at-wills for a Tactical Presence warlord, emphasizing that a Tactical Presence warlord should strive for heavier and heavier armor proficiencies (instead of sticking to hide), and stating that a reach weapon should only be secondary (they got it right on 116 of Martial Power in saying that polearms are probably the most optimal weapons for a warlord, so there is no excuse for this), be summarized by one quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



While I do see the "disconnect" between the more fundamental portrayal of warlords in PH1 and the "lead from the rear" portrayal for inspiring warlords in Warlord Essentials, I'm okay with them changing their minds about what an inspiring warlord "should" do.  However, right now there just aren't any powers for playing this kind of warlord.  In order to make their powers work, warlords need to be in the thick of melee, hitting things.  

In order to play this "lead from the rear" warlord, they need to give it some powers that work from a distance.  Perhaps a close burst version of Commander's Strike, or a power that lets an ally in a close burst charge an enemy in the burst.  It would almost be like the equivalent of a shielding cleric for the warlord - a PC who doesn't make many direct attacks himself, but who uses his allies' attacks for great effect.


----------



## fuzzlewump (Nov 9, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> great way to try to get the last word...



I'm not trying to throw in the 'last word', I just see that we are just arguing our standpoints and the discussion is going nowhere. I always enjoy seeing mindsets change a bit as a result of discussion, because that happens to me all the time, but this time we'll just have to throw in the towel. Good luck and good gaming to you sir.


----------



## Tav_Behemoth (Nov 9, 2009)

Adslahnit said:


> The low quality of these Essential articles overall is a sign of how hiring freelancers is simply not working out for Dragon Magazine.






Adslahnit said:


> I shall concede, however, that the Warden Essentials article is the most tolerable Essentials article of them all.




Since the most tolerable was written by freelancers rather than staffers, but is still not as good as the guides that were written by fans, I think you mean to say that hiring in general is not working out for Dragon!

Seriously, I see that this is a topic that folks feel strongly about, and I respect your feelings. I agree that fans have created some great content for 4E - character optimization guides being one of the best examples - and I think it'd be great if some of that was featured in Dragon (especially if it benefited from the same kind of editing and development that made the Warden article that was published substantially better than the one Eytan and I turned in.)


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Nov 9, 2009)

I'm agreeing pretty hard with Cadfan, which should say how *bizarre* this conversation is.

I don't and perhaps never will understand the hate for CharOps handbooks.  Most of the handbooks are made FOR new players.  They let you understand what powers are good and which are bad, and they typically tell you _why_.  They also tell you what stats are good for what, how the builds work, what feats are good ideas, etc, etc.

The non-handbooks threads in CharOps can be rather horrible and irritating to the max. But the handbooks?  That stuff is gold.

If there's anything I understand less then the CharOps hate, it's the idea of "I hate having math in my game!"  The game is built on math and spreadsheets, from the day the game was created, to the day the WotC employee made the newest 4e book while thinking about balance.  D&D has, and always has been, and always will be, about math.

If the scaaaaaaaary math is keeping you at bay, then I'm not quite grasping why you're playing this and not, say, Amber.


----------



## nightwyrm (Nov 9, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> I don't and perhaps never will understand the hate for CharOps handbooks. Most of the handbooks are made FOR new players. They let you understand what powers are good and which are bad, and they typically tell you _why_. They also tell you what stats are good for what, how the builds work, what feats are good ideas, etc, etc.
> 
> The non-handbooks threads in CharOps can be rather horrible and irritating to the max. But the handbooks? That stuff is gold.




+1

The handbooks are the best part of CharOps. Whenever I want to play a class that I haven't played before, I head to the handbooks to get a handle on the effects and rankings of the powers, analysis of the class features, crunch clarification and hidden synergies.  Saves a ton of time that I would've had to spend on reading through all the books.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Nov 9, 2009)

nightwyrm said:


> The handbooks are the best part of CharOps. Whenever I want to play a class that I haven't played before, I head to the handbooks to get a handle on the effects and rankings of the powers, analysis of the class features, crunch clarification and hidden synergies.  Saves a ton of time that I would've had to spend on reading through all the books.




The reason I get annoyed at them is because of the stuff that keeps being brought into my games that is clearly overpowered based on "I read it on the CharOp boards, there is no way they'd give me stuff that wasn't legal."  Then, when I read the rules it always comes down to the way someone reads a specific sentence somewhere.  If I choose to read it slightly differently the game stays balanced.

As for the handbooks, my ire to them comes from reading the Avenger one.  It basically said that there were only two ways of making an Avenger: The guy who runs around enemies randomly provoking Opportunity Attacks and the one that does everything he can to get enemies to move away from them on their turns voluntarily.

Of course, it's fairly obvious that the way they are intended to be played is that, despite the names, the Pursuing Avenger wants enemies to stay next to him and acts as a sort of Defender, while the Isolating Avenger encourages all the other enemies NOT to attack him through the use of his class features while occupying one of the enemies by himself, acting as a sort of controller by preventing the enemies from working together.

Of course, in order to do the most damage possible, you want your class feature to trigger the most often.  But to do so basically means playing the class in the exact opposite method it was meant to be played in.  The guide never says this.  In fact, it is written in such a way as to make it sound like playing the class in the intended way is stupid.  It then goes on to rate all of the powers in the class assuming that you are using one of the two valid tactics for creating an Avenger.  It rates a bunch of the powers that are GOOD for Avengers as bad because they cause the class features to trigger less often.

It then basically tells everyone that the best idea as an Avenger is to multiclass as Rogue and use a Dagger, since that's the only way to qualify for Daggermaster.  It made comments to the effect that playing a single class Avenger who took a Paragon Path that was designed for Avengers was a fools game.

And yes, following the advice of the guide maximizes your damage output.  It's a good idea if you care about nothing but damage output.  But it was completely useless for me when deciding what to take for my Avenger.  And it certainly shouldn't be advice for new players.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Nov 9, 2009)

Adslahnit said:


> I believe that the quality of the Warlord Essentials article can, despite all of the other subtle, yet horrendous recommendations and analyses that its writer makes, such as suggesting Commander's Strike for an Inspiring Presence warlord, stating that a Tactical Presence warlord is somehow a "secondary defender", noting down Viper's Strike and Wolf Pack Tactics as the two at-wills for a Tactical Presence warlord, emphasizing that a Tactical Presence warlord should strive for heavier and heavier armor proficiencies (instead of sticking to hide)




Yeah, this confused me a lot when I read it.  My idea of the two types of Warlord is the exact opposite of theirs.  Tactical Warlords should be the ones "leading from the rear", in the best way Warlords can.  Using reach weapons to stand behind people and using Commander's Strike and things like Lead the Attack to give bonuses to everyone.  He wears light armor since he can make use of his Intelligence for AC and it gives him better maneuverability to adjust to the changing battle.

Meanwhile the Inspiring Warlord leads by attacking himself, wearing heavy armor and "inspiring" his allies through deed.  He stands up front to heal himself and his allies as they need it.

But the advice in the article is pretty much the exact opposite of that.  It is then followed by a bunch of powers that feel like they SHOULD be in the flavor of Tactical Warlords(give your allies extra attacks) but then give special benefits to Inspiring Warlords for using these powers.


----------



## EarthSeraphEdna (Nov 9, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> The reason I get annoyed at them is because of the stuff that keeps being brought into my games that is clearly overpowered based on "I read it on the CharOp boards, there is no way they'd give me stuff that wasn't legal."  Then, when I read the rules it always comes down to the way someone reads a specific sentence somewhere.  If I choose to read it slightly differently the game stays balanced.
> 
> *snip*
> 
> It then basically tells everyone that the best idea as an Avenger is to multiclass as Rogue and use a Dagger, since that's the only way to qualify for Daggermaster.  It made comments to the effect that playing a single class Avenger who took a Paragon Path that was designed for Avengers was a fools game.




Looking at the paragon path section of the Avenger Handbook (Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible), I do not see anything you are referring to at all.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Nov 9, 2009)

Adslahnit said:


> Looking at the paragon path section of the Avenger Handbook (Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible), I do not see anything you are referring to at all.




Here is the direct quote from the guide:



> Unfortunately, as of this writing there are no Avenger paths that are as good at striking as, say, Pitfighter or Daggermaster. The Avenger paths range from bad to ok, but never make it over to great. However, if you're willing to multiclass, there are some great PPs out there for you to take. They just cost an extra feat.
> 
> If that's unacceptable, be sure to check out your racial PP (or any racial PP you qualify for, for the Revenants or Half-Elves among you). Some of them don't suck.
> 
> Otherwise, I recommend Ardent Champion




To me that says "Don't take Avenger Paragon Paths, take Pitfighter or Daggermaster instead...and if you don't want those, take a racial Paragon Path, and if you REALLY have to be an actual Avenger...take Ardent Champion."


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Nov 9, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> The reason I get annoyed at them is because of the stuff that keeps being brought into my games that is clearly overpowered based on "I read it on the CharOp boards, there is no way they'd give me stuff that wasn't legal."  Then, when I read the rules it always comes down to the way someone reads a specific sentence somewhere.  If I choose to read it slightly differently the game stays balanced.




BS.  Handbooks always assume for a conservative DM.  Cite some examples, please.



> As for the handbooks, my ire to them comes from reading the Avenger one.  It basically said that there were only two ways of making an Avenger: The guy who runs around enemies randomly provoking Opportunity Attacks and the one that does everything he can to get enemies to move away from them on their turns voluntarily.
> 
> Of course, it's fairly obvious that the way they are intended to be played is that, despite the names, the Pursuing Avenger wants enemies to stay next to him and acts as a sort of Defender, while the Isolating Avenger encourages all the other enemies NOT to attack him through the use of his class features while occupying one of the enemies by himself, acting as a sort of controller by preventing the enemies from working together.
> 
> ...




Hold up.

Sounds like the problem isn't with the guide.

It sounds like the problem is that the class isn't well built, and is contrary to itself.

If you have to choose between being good against the class design, and being bad and in the class design, then the problem isn't with the handbook that points out the bloody flaws.



Majoru Oakheart said:


> To me that says "Don't take Avenger Paragon Paths, take Pitfighter or Daggermaster instead...and if you don't want those, take a racial Paragon Path, and if you REALLY have to be an actual Avenger...take Ardent Champion."




It's saying "Hey, these paragon paths are better then the Avenger ones."  And that's _all_ it's saying.

The  little "If you really have to be an ACTUAL Avenger" part comes from you.

Your attributing things to the handbooks that aren't there.  More then that, you're attributing a purpose to the handbooks that aren't there.

The handbooks aren't there to tell you the fluff of the class.  The handbooks aren't there to tell you how to roleplay the class.  The handbooks aren't there to tell you how to create your character concept.  The handbooks are there to look at the game logically and help you choose the best powers for your archtype.

In other words?  The handbooks fit 4e to a T.


----------



## EarthSeraphEdna (Nov 9, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> Here is the direct quote from the guide:
> 
> 
> 
> To me that says "Don't take Avenger Paragon Paths, take Pitfighter or Daggermaster instead...and if you don't want those, take a racial Paragon Path, and if you REALLY have to be an actual Avenger...take Ardent Champion."




You seem to be reading this under your own biased light. Allow me to quote the Handbook in question:



> Ardent Champion(DP)
> This is a +striker PP, and it's good.
> 
> The first +striker feature is the crit special, which should add around 3% to your crit rate, depending on the exact interpretation used. (do you need to hit to crit using this feature?). The best part about this feature is that it stacks with any other way you have of increasing your critical range (like an Artificier with Vorpal Sigil, or Jagged weapons).
> ...




To me, that sounds like it is bringing to notice a gem in the rough for actual avenger paragon paths.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Nov 9, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> BS.  Handbooks always assume for a conservative DM.  Cite some examples, please.



I recently told a DM that I was planning on becoming a Daggermaster as a Sorcerer in order to get the extra crit range on all my spells.  That DM told me that there was no way he was allowing the extra crit range on spells because it was a Rogue Paragon Path that was obviously meant to make them better at striking vital areas due to using a small and fast weapon that was more accurate and that didn't apply to spells at all when a Dagger was used as an implement.

I pointed out that nothing in the rules says you get the crit range only when using the Dagger as a weapon.  He told me that it didn't matter about the absolute letter of the rules, the intention behind it was just important and that the Paragon Path doesn't mention anything caster classes wanting this class or it being very good for them.

Now, this is pretty much an agreed upon use of the rules by everyone in the CharOp boards, and is recommended in most builds.  In fact, increasing the crit range of your dagger/using Weapon Focus/Two Weapon Fighting/Dual Implements is one of the hallmarks of optimizing Sorcerers on the boards.

And until I saw the answer come back from WOTC that you could use Weapon Focus on implement attacks if the implement was also a weapon...I would never have considered allowing it.  I would have told people they were crazy.  I still think it was a bad idea for WOTC to have given that answer.  It's the answer that opened up the floodgates of "If this feat that appeared to be meant only for weapons works on implements...what other rules that say 'weapon' can now mean implement?"

I still have DMs who are trying to keep things under control in their games by ignoring that answer and saying that anything that refers to weapons works only when used as a weapon and not when used as an implement in order to control this.




ProfessorCirno said:


> It sounds like the problem is that the class isn't well built, and is contrary to itself.
> 
> If you have to choose between being good against the class design, and being bad and in the class design, then the problem isn't with the handbook that points out the bloody flaws.



Why is that?  I like my Avenger who plays within the class design just fine.  In fact, he's one of my favorite characters.  I was looking at the guide to figure out what Avenger powers someone else recommended that would be good for my character.  I instead found a guide that said "Don't take this power, it is really bad" for almost every power I already had and all the ones I was thinking of taking.

It's this idea that has also gotten a bunch of my friends into a mindset to stop playing classes.  Instead they play classes just for the class features and them promptly multiclass into another class for its best power.

This was one of the things that bothered me the most about 3.5e.  No one played archetypes anymore, they simply robbed a class of its mechanical benefits in order to become more powerful.  I was happy when I saw how poor a choice multiclassing was in 4e because I felt that would encourage people to stay one class and to have multiclassing be the rarity.  Unfortunately, the ability to take Paragon Paths designed for other classes has brought back the "Everyone is multiclassed" trend from 3.5e.



ProfessorCirno said:


> Your attributing things to the handbooks that aren't there.  More then that, you're attributing a purpose to the handbooks that aren't there.



The only purpose I think these guides should have is to tell you the best, most effective way to make the class do what the class does.

This one says "Since the Avenger is a striker, I'm going to put on the Striker lens when I evaluate paragon paths. If a path makes a decent leader, for example, I may point that out, but it's rating will suffer unless it also makes a decent striker."

Which is putting on too narrow a lens for an article on how best to play an Avenger, which is clearly not a "pure" striker in the same way that Ranger is.

I'd prefer an article that says "An Avenger is a Striker but can lean toward controller, leader, or defender.  If a Paragon Path lets you do any of these secondary roles well, I will rate it highly based on how effectively it lets you fill that role, but point out WHAT it is effective at.  If a Paragon Path simply does a worse job than any other method of fulfilling that role available to you, I will rate it poorly."

And when it comes down to it, a large portion of it is opinion based on how the author thinks the class should work.  Which is nearly useless if I don't see the class working the same way.



ProfessorCirno said:


> The handbooks aren't there to tell you the fluff of the class.  The handbooks aren't there to tell you how to roleplay the class.  The handbooks aren't there to tell you how to create your character concept.  The handbooks are there to look at the game logically and help you choose the best powers for your archtype.
> 
> In other words?  The handbooks fit 4e to a T.



I disagree.  The Avenger handbook never helps me build my archetype.  The closest my Avenger comes to anything it considers acceptable is a "Martyr".  However, I still want to avoid being hit whenever possible even though I put myself out there in dangerous situations and dare enemies to hit me so I can get extra damage.  But the guide recommended against anything that would increase my AC, since I do more damage when enemies hit me.

I want a balance between "I do extra damage when people hit me" and "I don't want to die".  But any power that would give me that balance is picked on by the guide as being contrary to what you want to build a Martyr and therefore not worth taking.

But I also want a character who is a religious fanatic who embodies his gods ideals and punishes his enemies using Holy Might.  Which is why I picked Avenger as a class.

But the article never tells me how to best play that archetype.  It tells me how to play the two archetypes that the author has decided are the only two valid archetypes for Avengers to have.

I disagree that any guide for 4e needs to entirely remove fluff or roleplaying from its calculation.  Or that 4e is somehow designed for this type of guide.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Nov 9, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> I recently told a DM that I was planning on becoming a Daggermaster as a Sorcerer in order to get the extra crit range on all my spells.  That DM told me that there was no way he was allowing the extra crit range on spells because it was a Rogue Paragon Path that was obviously meant to make them better at striking vital areas due to using a small and fast weapon that was more accurate and that didn't apply to spells at all when a Dagger was used as an implement.
> 
> I pointed out that nothing in the rules says you get the crit range only when using the Dagger as a weapon.  He told me that it didn't matter about the absolute letter of the rules, the intention behind it was just important and that the Paragon Path doesn't mention anything caster classes wanting this class or it being very good for them.




So your first bit of evidence is "My DM made up some BS about how he and only he knew the TRUE nature of the rules, when he could've just told me no and end it at that."



> Now, this is pretty much an agreed upon use of the rules by everyone in the CharOp boards, and is recommended in most builds.  In fact, increasing the crit range of your dagger/using Weapon Focus/Two Weapon Fighting/Dual Implements is one of the hallmarks of optimizing Sorcerers on the boards.




This is the agreed upon use of the rules by everyone but your DM.  The problem with "rules as I interpret" is that it means "Rules as I think they should be, not as how they actually are."  And while there's nothing wrong with houserules, that only works if you actually announce them as houserules.



> And until I saw the answer come back from WOTC that you could use Weapon Focus on implement attacks if the implement was also a weapon...I would never have considered allowing it.  I would have told people they were crazy.  I still think it was a bad idea for WOTC to have given that answer.  It's the answer that opened up the floodgates of "If this feat that appeared to be meant only for weapons works on implements...what other rules that say 'weapon' can now mean implement?"




I'm admittingly not active on the 4e forums - could you show me where the *handbooks* discuss using other weapons used as implement feats?



> I still have DMs who are trying to keep things under control in their games by ignoring that answer and saying that anything that refers to weapons works only when used as a weapon and not when used as an implement in order to control this.




Let me get this straight.

My question: Show me where the handbook wasn't conservative about the rules.
Your answer: My DM feared losing control and made up a houserule, but claimed that it's what the rules are meant to be, it's just that nobody else in the world could see it properly.



> Why is that?  I like my Avenger who plays within the class design just fine.  In fact, he's one of my favorite characters.  I was looking at the guide to figure out what Avenger powers someone else recommended that would be good for my character.  I instead found a guide that said "Don't take this power, it is really bad" for almost every power I already had and all the ones I was thinking of taking.




Once again, the handbooks aren't there to teach you how to roleplay.  They're there to discuss what's logically and mathamatically the best options.  You could find skill: underwater basket weaving to be *awesomely fun!*  But it's still mostly bloody useless.



> It's this idea that has also gotten a bunch of my friends into a mindset to stop playing classes.  Instead they play classes just for the class features and them promptly multiclass into another class for its best power.
> 
> This was one of the things that bothered me the most about 3.5e.  No one played archetypes anymore, they simply robbed a class of its mechanical benefits in order to become more powerful.  I was happy when I saw how poor a choice multiclassing was in 4e because I felt that would encourage people to stay one class and to have multiclassing be the rarity.  Unfortunately, the ability to take Paragon Paths designed for other classes has brought back the "Everyone is multiclassed" trend from 3.5e.




This isn't a problem with the handbooks, it's a problem with the system.  If this bugs you, then play 2e.  3.5 and 4e are designed around the mechanics.



> The only purpose I think these guides should have is to tell you the best, most effective way to make the class do what the class does.




...Yes, that's the purpose of *any* guide.



> This one says "Since the Avenger is a striker, I'm going to put on the Striker lens when I evaluate paragon paths. If a path makes a decent leader, for example, I may point that out, but it's rating will suffer unless it also makes a decent striker."
> 
> Which is putting on too narrow a lens for an article on how best to play an Avenger, which is clearly not a "pure" striker in the same way that Ranger is.
> 
> I'd prefer an article that says "An Avenger is a Striker but can lean toward controller, leader, or defender.  If a Paragon Path lets you do any of these secondary roles well, I will rate it highly based on how effectively it lets you fill that role, but point out WHAT it is effective at.  If a Paragon Path simply does a worse job than any other method of fulfilling that role available to you, I will rate it poorly."




If the Avenger cannot take the place of another role, why even bother mentioning it?  You can have a fighter that you like to pretend is also a controller, but if the mechanics don't follow up, then all you're doing is writing fanfiction.



> And when it comes down to it, a large portion of it is opinion based on how the author thinks the class should work.  Which is nearly useless if I don't see the class working the same way.




So write a handbook.  No, seriously.  There's like four Sorcerer handbooks.  If you disagree with the Avenger handbook so much, make your own.




> Lots of stuff on character mechanics




Haven't played an Avenger, so I can't comment much here.[/quote]



> I disagree that any guide for 4e needs to entirely remove fluff or roleplaying from its calculation.  Or that 4e is somehow designed for this type of guide.




And you're wrong.  Sorry, but you are.  4e is 100% designed around you, the player, making up and/or substituting the fluff.  It's what the vast majority of 4e fans state as the thing they love most about it.  And there is nothing that would raise more hackles and cause more fights then a handbook stating how to roleplay.  Hell, look at how big this thread and argument is over the discussion of math.  You made multiple paragraphs about how angry you are that the Avenger handbook picked only two mechanical archtypes.  How much more angry would you get if it picked to ways of roleplaying an Avenger and only talked about those?



Now, if you'll allow me to link this back around, name some things from the Essentials articles that are *better* then the Handbooks.  And this goes to everyone, not just Majoru.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Nov 9, 2009)

firt of all somehow somewhere people have mistaken essentials articles for some made up article that is all about optimazation...that is not it. These articles are about building characters that are viable not optimazed



Majoru Oakheart said:


> As for the handbooks, my ire to them comes from reading the Avenger one.  It basically said that there were only two ways of making an Avenger: The guy who runs around enemies randomly provoking Opportunity Attacks and the one that does everything he can to get enemies to move away from them on their turns voluntarily.




Yea it gets me mad when I read defender things about forceing the marks too. "Be a paliden and challenge then go invisable" or "Be a fighter/rouge to mark and have riposet strike going"

maybe I want to play a defender that uses the mark as wotc intended (and states this intent). If the bad guy attacks my allie the mark failed...but I get a punishment rider. I am sick of optimazed pcs that claim I am 'nerfing' there build by having marked monsters not ignore the mark...




ProfessorCirno said:


> Hold up.
> 
> Sounds like the problem isn't with the guide.
> 
> It sounds like the problem is that the class isn't well built, and is contrary to itself.




The problem is it is a diffrent play style. You can tell the fluff of avenger is written for one thing, but the mechanic lets you go the other. Becuse mathmaticly one is better it is pushed to the detment of the other...




> If you have to choose between being good against the class design, and being bad and in the class design, then the problem isn't with the handbook that points out the bloody flaws.




what about when the op board suggest the best avengers are ones that multi and take lots of non avenger powers...um but I wanted to play an avenger




> It's saying "Hey, these paragon paths are better then the Avenger ones."  And that's _all_ it's saying.
> 
> The  little "If you really have to be an ACTUAL Avenger" part comes from you.
> 
> Your attributing things to the handbooks that aren't there.  More then that,you're attributing a purpose to the handbooks that aren't there.



the purpose of suggesting that all avenger are BETTER for multi classing is min/maxing at it;s worst...the class can make very powerful characters as is...but not the BEST characters...





> The handbooks aren't there to tell you the fluff of the class.  The handbooks aren't there to tell you how to roleplay the class.  The handbooks aren't there to tell you how to create your character concept.  The handbooks are there to look at the game logically and help you choose the best powers for your archtype.




this is why they fail as essentials articles...


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 9, 2009)

The specific content aside.

I think Essentials and Class Acts serve different roles.
- The Essentials is all about describing how the class and its builds are supposed to work* and how to build characters for them. I suppose sometimes they miss the mark, and I think WotC will have to check when that happened and why that happened. 

- The Class Acts are about specific - often new - focuses of a class. The "Illusionist Wizard" didn't exist per se before that Class Act appeared, since only that act added needed illusion powers to the Wizard. They don't try to cover the basics, they add a twist or theme to the class that did not exist before or was not worked out well enough.

Of course there is some overlap. The Essentials add new powers trying to improve a few available build options. But that seems to be mostly about covering the Essentials - be a really good two-handed weapon guy, an essential build and theme of the class.
But adding illusion or fey powers doesn't make you a better Control or War Wizard.



* "Supposed to work" is a lot about design intent. MAybe you can achieve better "DPS" or "Defense" or whatever you care for if you do another build. But that's not he goal of the class or build. 
But in some cases I think they even got the basics wrong - my Inspiring Warlord definitely feels more like a secondary defender (Sword, Board, Plate Armor), something they seem to associate with the Tactical Warlord, for example, and I would not benefit from Commander's Strike in the least.
But Majoru Oakhearts description of the Class Optimization guidelines clearly show where people go in the wrong direction. A pursuing avenger is supposed to make it futile for the enemy to run away. Yes, he will deal less damage if he does that, but this part of the class - even if is is a Striker class - was not just there to deal more damage. It's a striker reducing the enemies mobility so he can't fight as effectively. Yes, that's "anti-DPS" for the enemy instead of DPS for the player character.


----------



## Jack99 (Nov 9, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> I'm agreeing pretty hard with Cadfan, which should say how *bizarre* this conversation is.




Just to make things even more bizarre, I also agree with you ><


----------



## Dausuul (Nov 9, 2009)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I spoke explicitely of a single minion.




The whole point of minions is that you encounter them in packs, frequently hordes, sometimes swarms. (Yes, I've been playing Heroes of Might and Magic recently, why do you ask?) So choosing powers on the basis of what will help you against a single minion is... poor planning IMO, unless your DM takes a very unconventional approach to combat.

Anyway, that aside...

An article advising players on builds and tactics should offer the most effective builds and tactics, within any constraints which apply. This is just basic good sense.

Now, that "within any constraints which apply" is important. An article aimed at newbies should offer builds and tactics which newbies can handle, which is why simply pointing them at the CharOp boards is not the best plan*. You don't want to be explaining how Thibault cancels out Capa Ferro unless the enemy has decided to use Agrippa, when what your audience needs is "This is how to hold a sword properly."

But that doesn't mean you shouldn't teach them how to hold a sword properly! Sure Strike is mechanically sub-par. An attack stat of 15 (!) is sub-par. Telling someone "Pick Cleave or Tide of Iron over Sure Strike, and put an 18 in your attack stat" is not expert-level advice. In fact, these are extremely newbie-friendly suggestions; they boost your character's combat performance no matter how skilled or unskilled a player you are**.

Other constraints might be "don't rely on dubious rules interpretations," and "don't subvert the concept of a class" (e.g., optimizing a wizard into a melee powerhouse). But neither of those constraints applies to deciding between Sure Strike and Cleave.

I'm not going to accuse anyone of badwrongfun for picking Sure Strike. But build advice, _by its nature_, implies a goal of improving mechanical effectiveness***. If mechanical effectiveness is not your concern, why are you giving build advice at all?

----

[SIZE=-2]*As regards the CharOp boards: Take them for what they are. They're a great place for theorycraft and for evaluating the mechanical effectiveness of powers, feats, and builds. They should not be treated as the Word of God on how to build a character, but they do offer a valid and useful perspective.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-2]**An example of _non_-newbie-friendly advice is the argument that you can use Sure Strike with Heavy Blade Opportunity at Paragon tier in order to control the battlefield better. Yeah, you can, but that's a substantial trade-off and requires a fair amount of play experience to weigh the costs and benefits. Also, it doesn't kick in till Paragon, so you're almost certainly better off taking something else at Heroic tier and then retraining. Any advice which involves planning to retrain is not newbie-friendly.

***For some value of "mechanical effectiveness." Despite CharOp's preoccupation with damage output, you can optimize for different things. Skill Focus (Stealth) is a poor pick for a rogue who wants to be a death machine in battle, but a strong pick for a rogue who wants to be the ultimate scout.
[/SIZE]


----------



## Garthanos (Nov 9, 2009)

Dausuul said:


> [SIZE=-2]*An example of _non_-newbie-friendly advice is the argument that you can use Sure Strike with Heavy Blade Opportunity at Paragon tier in order to control the battlefield better. Yeah, you can, but that's a substantial trade-off and requires a fair amount of play experience to weigh the costs and benefits. Also, it doesn't kick in till Paragon, so you're almost certainly better off taking something else at Heroic tier and then retraining. Any advice which involves planning to retrain is not newbie-friendly.[/SIZE]




For those whom retraining should be a role play element... you could even visualize your character going from a brash youth... and retraining up to being a sure fire master.


----------



## Obryn (Nov 9, 2009)

You know, I think I might agree with the OP, if his posting style weren't full of over-the-top aggressive one-true-wayism.   Regardless, I agree with Cirno and Cadfan, mostly.

I will have to look at the guides, but the CharOp forums are nests of vipers and I'd rather not step foot in them.  Posts like the OP have negatively tainted my view of anything CharOp-related.

My only issue is that, while I greatly enjoy guides like this for CRPGs with well-defined adventures and plots, RPGs that take place at a real table with real people and variable settings might never see the ideal situations which must be assumed for this sort of mathematical analysis.  Plus, specific other table variations make a huge difference - some DMs walk past Defenders, for example, while others treat them as the Grasping Hand of God.  These variations can make or break your choices, when you bring a character to the table.  This doesn't make the math wrong in the least - it's just that I find the CharOp approach a bit myopic.

Math is math and stats are stats.  I have no doubt the mathematical analyses are valid within the range of ideal situations assumed within them.  I'm no stats skeptic - it's part of my job, after all.

I also can't stand posts like, "You picked THAT?!  Why?!?  It's mechanically inferior, and you will lose out on an average 0.38 points of damage per round!"  Those get my goat. 

-O


----------



## AllisterH (Nov 9, 2009)

Obryn said:


> I also can't stand posts like, "You picked THAT?!  Why?!?  It's mechanically inferior, and you will lose out on an average 0.38 points of damage per round!"  Those get my goat.
> 
> -O




This is the thing I would really love to see.

How much of a difference in an adventure/typical encounter are we talking here with BAD choices versus OPTIMAL choices?

(To use the notation of the Char-op guides).

For example, if I came up with the backstory of an eladrin paladin who was raised by dwarven priests of Clangeddin (A  BALadin who wields a Greataxe), would we see much difference in say an actual adventure/encounter like Keep on the Shadowfell versus say a Dragonborn STRaladin who follows Bahamut?


----------



## Nifft (Nov 9, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> How much of a difference in an adventure/typical encounter are we talking here with BAD choices versus OPTIMAL choices?



 Depends on the encounter, of course. If you're facing minions below your level, not much difference I'd bet. If you're facing Elite Soldiers above your level, having a mechanically well-built PC will let you live.



AllisterH said:


> For example, if I came up with the backstory of an eladrin paladin who was raised by dwarven priests of Clangeddin (A  BALadin who wields a Greataxe), would we see much difference in say an actual adventure/encounter like Keep on the Shadowfell versus say a Dragonborn STRaladin who follows Bahamut?



 So basically, how would a poorly designed PC fare against Grimtooth?

(That's a bad adventure to choose if you want to illustrate how those two characters could be equally fun. Grimtooth will kill poorly designed PCs, and even many well designed PCs, but the latter have a much better chance of walking away.)

Keep on the Shadowfell made my group realizes how poor bad of the pregens were.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## karlindel (Nov 9, 2009)

I personally enjoy the Essentials articles overall.  The fluff can be fun to read, and it's nice to see different takes on powers, as well as the new crunch that comes with the articles.  

That said, there are definitely some issues with some of them.  For example, the advice for the Inspiring Warlord to take Commander's Strike, but not the Tactical Warlord, is just silly given how weak the power is for the Inspiring Warlord and how amazing it is for a Tactical Warlord.  I also think that a better stat allocation (i.e. at least 16 pre-racial in the main attack stat) is important advice for new players.  

I also like the handbooks on the CharOps boards.  I'm not a fan of all of the CharOps stuff, but the handbooks are generally full of good advice for new players as well as interesting ideas and alternatives for experienced players.


----------



## Jhaelen (Nov 9, 2009)

I think the OPs avatar is atrocious. The articles? Not so much.

I'm also with Obryn: I don't visit the CO boards because I can't stand the attitude that - judging by the OPs example - is typical for that place.


----------



## Jack99 (Nov 9, 2009)

Nifft said:


> So basically, how would a poorly designed PC fare against Grimtooth?
> 
> (That's a bad adventure to choose if you want to illustrate how those two characters could be equally fun. Grimtooth will kill poorly designed PCs, and even many well designed PCs, but the latter have a much better chance of walking away.)
> 
> ...



Who is Grimtooth? Do you mean Irontooth or did I get more beers tonight than I seem to recall?


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Nov 9, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> Who is Grimtooth? Do you mean Irontooth or did I get more beers tonight than I seem to recall?




you are correct...



here comes the fun part...make up multi sets of the same character...

lets say level 26... make 4 characters with the most optimized choices...then make characters with 1 diffrence each...

example: Fighter/pit fighter/ demi god with weapon expertise, weapon focus, epic def feat, toughnes, I know I am missing 'must have feats'

then the same character with 1 feat instead of expertise
then the same character (put expertise back) with a feat instad of the def feat
ect. ect. ect.

then start the encounter, BUT use the same dice roll for all 10 encounter running simo... see if any combo fails to win the challenge...

when you find the set of characters that are so bad off they can't win...then you can say THAT is the bad choice...


----------



## Lord Byron (Nov 9, 2009)

Jhaelen said:


> I think the OPs avatar is atrocious. The articles? Not so much.




Hey.

Flandre is awesome.

What the heck?  Insulting the guys avatar, kinda weird.


More seriously and on-topic, a while ago, I came to this conclusion: _All things being equal_, take the mechanically optimal choice.  So, if you're choosing between sword X and sword Y, and sword Y deals .1 more damage per round, you take sword Y.  The point being that even the smallest significant mathematical difference should be enough to sway you one direction or another.  This is pretty much the basis of all optimization as far as I can tell.

And this has never really harmed my ability to create the character I want to make.  Rather, things like the character handbooks, which make recommendations as to the optimal choices for a given class, form the baseline from which I can choose to deviate.  I honestly view them as a way to separating the chaff from the wheat, when it comes to powers, feats, etc.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Nov 9, 2009)

Lord Byron said:


> I came to this conclusion: _All things being equal_, take the mechanically optimal choice.




see that 'all things being equal' is the thing...

If:
 power A does .98 DPR more then B and 1.32 more then C
 power B does .34 DPR more then C
 Power C is the weakest for DPR...

and all else is equal fine...BUT what if we add

   power A in no way fits my concept, and I don't even like it
   power B is alright but not really within what I want
   Power C I think is fun, cool, and is the type of thing I want my character to do...

is 'all else equal' or not?
I would look and say 1.32 DPR is so small a diffrence that I will take power C... but maybe we are nto the same.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 9, 2009)

Dausuul said:


> The whole point of minions is that you encounter them in packs, frequently hordes, sometimes swarms. (Yes, I've been playing Heroes of Might and Magic recently, why do you ask?) So choosing powers on the basis of what will help you against a single minion is... poor planning IMO, unless your DM takes a very unconventional approach to combat.
> 
> Anyway, that aside...




Í don´t believe, only because minions are expected to be encountered in groups, they have to be standing next to each other...

Still I am not debating the point, that sure strike is so unattractive, that it should not be picked usually.

I however do believe you take my comments out of context... so try read and comment to complete posts...


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 9, 2009)

@GMfPG:

I also believe DPR is worth nothing in a vaccum. It just doesn´t reflect the actual game.

Sure strike e.g. can be a blessing if you know a monster is barely on his feet with 1 or 2 hp left, where any excess damage is just wasted. Especially if you are using bloodclaw, weapon focus and leader damage riders, the difference is maximum 9 damage at level 28. (If you are not using an axe or hammer where i can actually be 16)
Just for Dausuul: i still wouldn´t take sure strike on most builds. I would rather take an encounter or daily which trades damage for accuracy then.


----------



## nightwyrm (Nov 10, 2009)

I think the idea that CharOps focus solely on DPR is a bit exaggerated. Sure, if you're looking at a handbook for a striker, of course they'll be focusing on DPR. But if you look at handbooks for controllers or defenders, they'll often recommend powers that inflict conditions or force movements over powers that does higher pure damage but has no other effects.

What they do focus on a lot is your hit rate. Things that allow you to hit easier and carries a good effect are often recommended.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Nov 10, 2009)

nightwyrm said:


> I think the idea that CharOps focus solely on DPR is a bit exaggerated.  Sure, if you're looking at a handbook for a striker, of course they'll be focusing on DPR.  But if you look at handbooks for controllers or defenders, they'll often recommend powers that inflict conditions or force movements over powers that does pure damage.
> 
> What they do focus on a lot is your hit rate.  Things that allow you to hit easier and carries a good effect are often recommended.




hit rate over damage to carry effects (like stoping movment with op attacks) sounds like sure strike and heavy blade op would be a good choice...but they don't like that...


----------



## nightwyrm (Nov 10, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> hit rate over damage to carry effects (like stoping movment with op attacks) sounds like sure strike and heavy blade op would be a good choice...but they don't like that...




Because it's too specific. You need HBO and thus be using a sword, you need to be making an opportunity attack, and brash strike already does it better. Sure strike by itself doesn't do enough. You're spending too much stuff to make sure strike useful and once you take into account the opportunity cost, it's not an optimized usage of your feats and power for your entire character build.

However, they love stuff like weapon powers that allows you to hit NADs.

For say the invoker, they will recommend Sun Strike (which hits ref and slides) over Avenging Light (which hits fort and does a bit more damage). And they would recommend the ref hitting area attack Vanguard's Lightning much higher over both even though its damage is even less.


----------



## Wayside (Nov 10, 2009)

nightwyrm said:


> it's not an optimized usage of your feats and power for your entire character build.



That's all well and good for Spike, but Timmy and Johnny don't care.


----------



## Nifft (Nov 10, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> Who is Grimtooth? Do you mean Irontooth or did I get more beers tonight than I seem to recall?



 Irontooth. Right. I'm the one with more beers tonight.

Thanks, -- N


----------



## nightwyrm (Nov 10, 2009)

Wayside said:


> That's all well and good for Spike, but Timmy and Johnny don't care.




That's true...but I was reflecting CharOps opinion.

But I'm not sure the archetypes from Magic really applies.  Aren't johnnies the ones loves their cheese and wins with weird 4 card combos.  Timmies are the only ones not well represented in CharOps.


----------



## Garthanos (Nov 10, 2009)

Wayside said:


> That's all well and good for Spike, but Timmy and Johnny don't care.



Irresponsible to recommend to a newbie stranger in that way - I am certain they assume you know what you are recommending and that you will recommend something they can handle not something taking esoterica or unusual circumstance to use well.

I would recommend to a newbie interested in "Sure Strike"
"I never miss" and "assured aggressive attack" 

Recognize them?


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Nov 10, 2009)

Wayside said:


> That's all well and good for Spike, but Timmy and Johnny don't care.




ok, is this a magic the gathering thing...or a movie thing?? eaither way I missed my know: geek DC


----------



## nightwyrm (Nov 10, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> ok, is this a magic the gathering thing...or a movie thing?? eaither way I missed my know: geek DC




It's a Magic thing describing player archetypes.

Spike likes to win.
Timmy likes big creatures and big effects.
Johnny likes making weird decks and combos.

Detailed explanation here:
http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr11b
and here:
http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr220b


----------



## Nightson (Nov 10, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> ok, is this a magic the gathering thing...or a movie thing?? eaither way I missed my know: geek DC




Timmy, Johnny, and Spike Revisited : Daily MTG : Magic: The Gathering


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Nov 10, 2009)

Quite frankly, from how this reads?

In this thread, people who have _never read a single handbook_ complain about them.


----------



## MrGrenadine (Nov 10, 2009)

Please...no more Magic: the Gathering talk.  <shudder>

I'll agree to anything you want, just make it stop.


----------



## Garthanos (Nov 10, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Quite frankly, from how this reads?
> 
> In this thread, people who have _never read a single handbook_ complain about them.




Lots of guilt by association going on.. some threads on them boards give me a queasy stomach (but the handbooks rock - ok usually)


----------



## kaomera (Nov 10, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Quite frankly, from how this reads?
> 
> In this thread, people who have _never read a single handbook_ complain about them.



I'd be a bit more generous and suggest that maybe they read them, but only after they had a negative opinion of the CharOp boards, and everything therein. Some posters seem to be very touchy about the idea that you might not follow their advice 100%, for whatever reason.

IMO: If taken simply as (optimization-slanted) advice the Handbooks are excellent material, marred (for me) only by being hard to read (due to the board revamp) and not at all colour-blind-friendly. If you want or expect the Handbooks to build your character for you... Well, they mostly will, and it will be both optimized (for certain values of optimized) and cookie-cutter.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Nov 10, 2009)

nightwyrm said:


> It's a Magic thing describing player archetypes.
> 
> Spike likes to win.
> Timmy likes big creatures and big effects.
> Johnny likes making weird decks and combos.




To be more specific, WOTC figured out that there are a number of player personalities.  It applies specifically to Magic, but the research can at least be adapted to other games.

Basically, Spike likes to win.  They are hyper competitive.  In Magic they are the people who are likely to pick and choose cards that have no story reason to go together, no particular combo that needs to be built up, and don't particularly care about big numbers.  They look for the "best" cards.  Translate that to D&D and you probably have people who look for the "best" power each time they pick one.  That might not be the one that does the most damage, but the one that is most effective overall.

Timmys like big numbers, big effects, big everything.  They like do be the one who does 10,000 damage even though it only took 20 to win.  If it takes them 10 rounds of doing almost nothing in order to do something overwhelmingly big, they'll do it.  Even if they could have won in round 3 with more subtle tactics.  Even if it causes them to lose, they don't care.  The one time in 10 they do win, they get to do it extravagantly.

Johnnys like combos.  They like to be the one that stuns with their first power then attacks someone with a power that does more damage against stunned targets as immediately after.  They are the ones that like to take all Cold keyword powers and get a feat that adds to all their powers because of that.

Part of the key to game design is understanding these player personalities and understanding that they each view the game in a different way.  A power that is Str-5 vs AC for 4[w]+str at 5th level might be a little weak for most Spikes but will have Timmy's taking it constantly.  A power that does 0 damage but immobilizes an enemy likely has Timmys and Spikes staring in disbelief but has Johnnys drooling after they see the power that stuns someone who is immobilized without an attack roll.

So, you need to design powers and abilities that apply to each of the player types.  And guides really need to be written with each of these types in mind.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Nov 10, 2009)

kaomera said:


> I'd be a bit more generous and suggest that maybe they read them, but only after they had a negative opinion of the CharOp boards, and everything therein. Some posters seem to be very touchy about the idea that you might not follow their advice 100%, for whatever reason.



I've read them and I admit some are better than others.  I just disagreed with about 90% of the advice given in the Avenger one.  I found that as I was going through the list of powers, it would often say "Don't take this power, it only does 2[w] which is way too low for a Striker power of this level, instead, if you can, multiclass into Rogue and take this power instead".  Then I looked at the power and said "Well, it isn't the greatest power in the world but it encourages enemies to stay beside me and attack me which is the primary goal of my character...it doesn't do that much damage but if all the enemies attack you, it does way more damage.  I think I'm going to take it."

Meanwhile the handbook claimed it was the worst power of its level.  It didn't go into any explanation as to why it might be a GOOD power some of the time or even say some builds of Avenger might want it.  It just said "not worth taking...too low damage, and as a striker all you want is damage".



kaomera said:


> If you want or expect the Handbooks to build your character for you... Well, they mostly will, and it will be both optimized (for certain values of optimized) and cookie-cutter.




Of course the Handbooks aren't going to build a character for me.  But I do expect a well thought out and balanced discussion of the merits and flaws of powers.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Nov 10, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> To be more specific, WOTC figured out that there are a number of player personalities.  It applies specifically to Magic, but the research can at least be adapted to other games.




this amazes me...infact it is what I have been trying to put into words for years...




> Part of the key to game design is understanding these player personalities and understanding that they each view the game in a different way.  A power that is Str-5 vs AC for 4[w]+str at 5th level might be a little weak for most Spikes but will have Timmy's taking it constantly.  A power that does 0 damage but immobilizes an enemy likely has Timmys and Spikes staring in disbelief but has Johnnys drooling after they see the power that stuns someone who is immobilized without an attack roll.




although you went to extremes to prove your point I do see it...and it is mostly what I have seen.



> So, you need to design powers and abilities that apply to each of the player types.  And guides really need to be written with each of these types in mind.




but the opt board makes them for spike, and the mag articles make them for Johnny...(and to be honnest the warlord one still has one or two flaws in it) it makes so much sense now...

I think we need this type of open design for intended audiance in D&D...wow just wow...


----------



## nightwyrm (Nov 10, 2009)

To be fair, some handbooks are a lot better than others depending on the writer.  Sturgeon's Law and all that...


----------



## kaomera (Nov 10, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> I've read them and I admit some are better than others.  I just disagreed with about 90% of the advice given in the Avenger one.



I wanted to discuss this, but unfortunately neither of the Avenger Handbooks that I can currently find seem to be complete enough to actually have a powers section at the moment... =/ I blame the WotC boards reorganization / facelift...



> Of course the Handbooks aren't going to build a character for me.  But I do expect a well thought out and balanced discussion of the merits and flaws of powers.



Well, IMO, that's not what the Handbooks are. I may personally not think that "well thought out and balanced" is a great description for the whole of the CharOp boards (and I don't feel inclined to sift out the gold from the, uh, "you know"), but the boards are where you are going to see the real discussion. The Handbooks are pretty much for people who don't want to sift through discussion, and just see the "final" results, at least as filtered by the Handbook's compiler. And one advantage of the Handbooks for me is that there's less temptation to go and post about what advice you are using and/or what you're ignoring, which would probably just start an argument anyway. The Handbook is one person's compiled advice on how to optimize your character. Optimize =/= build; the reason all of the options, even the "dead" / "bad" ones, are listed is that they are all still available to you, if that's what you want to do. It's up to you and the rest of the group you play with how much optimization is enough (and how much is too little or too much).


----------



## Dausuul (Nov 10, 2009)

I think it's dangerous to apply the M:tG player archetypes to D&D. The player types listed in the DMG are a better fit. If one is going to use the M:tG types, they have to be adjusted a bit for context:

Timmy is the roleplayer. He's not concerned with mechanics and is usually fuzzy on the details of the rules; he can manage "roll to attack," but gets confused when his bonus to hit with a basic attack doesn't match his bonus with an at-will. He takes feats like Linguist and plays an elf warlock because it fits his character concept. He doesn't read the CharOp boards because he doesn't care.

Johnny is the guy with character ADD. He always has a new class or mechanic he wants to try out. He plays an elf warlock today because he's thought of a cool synergy between the elf racial abilities and some warlock pact he found in Dragon, but two weeks from now he'll retire that character and make a half-orc wizard. He doesn't read the CharOp boards because using someone else's ideas takes all the fun out of it.

Spike is the tactician and optimizer (or, in his less group-friendly incarnation, the hypercompetitive power gamer). His goal is to deliver the crushingest possible beatdown in every encounter. He won't ever play an elf warlock; the stat bonuses are all wrong and the warlock class is total weaksauce. He reads the CharOp boards religiously and builds as close to their designs as the DM will let him get away with.

Of course, these are extremes, and in practice a lot of people are a mix of the three in varying proportions. I'd describe myself as 50% Johnny, 25% Timmy, and 25% Spike (and that applies in both Magic and D&D).


----------



## Garthanos (Nov 10, 2009)

Stereotypes have historically been used to treat people badly... the same can happen here.. assuming Timmy doesn't want to win ... just because he wants to roleplay for instance. (hence recommending things that will almost assure he doesnt).

By win I mean feel useful and contributive to the team.

And yes wierdly in roleplaying having ones character seem strikingly ineffective can be a win .. if you planned it that way . Take a warlord and skin it right for instance and it seems like you are always missing but inspiring the other heros to protect you... heheh Jockster anyone...


----------



## Dausuul (Nov 10, 2009)

Garthanos said:


> Stereotypes have historically been used to treat people badly... the same can happen here.. assuming Timmy doesn't want to win ... just because he wants to roleplay for instance. (hence recommending things that will almost assure he doesnt).




If you try to slot everyone into one of those three categories, yeah, you'll have problems. I'm more Johnny than anything else, but I won't make a character that doesn't fit a cool concept (a Timmy trait), and I won't pick powers and feats that I see as unacceptably weak (a Spike trait).

But if you keep in mind that most people aren't 100% anything, the categories are useful to illustrate aspects of how and why people game, and to provide for their needs.

And Timmy wants to win like everyone else. It's just that he doesn't build characters with winning in mind. He wants his elf warlock who speaks five languages, and if that means he isn't as ruthlessly efficient as Spike's drow rogue or as mechanically clever as Johnny's half-orc wizard, so be it.


----------



## Garthanos (Nov 10, 2009)

Dausuul said:


> And Timmy wants to win like everyone else. It's just that he doesn't build characters with winning in mind.




Nyeah see you make it sound like timmy is a bit daft with this dont you?.. 
Timmy gets a win for taking linguist if you make linguist important to the
story... The D&D game with its endemic common tongue makes the linguist feat daft unless the DM works to make it so using the correct language now has a real benefit like making your Diplomacy checks much better when you do.. or giving you access to certain spells if you have the right language... etc. I am mentioning mechanic ways to allow Linguist to shine... but they dont have to be. 
Somebody spent a feat for this.


----------



## Dausuul (Nov 10, 2009)

Garthanos said:


> Nyeah see you make it sound like timmy is a bit daft with this dont you?..
> Timmy gets a win for taking linguist if you make linguist important to the
> story... The D&D game with its endemic common tongue makes the linguist feat daft unless the DM works to make it so using the correct language now has a real benefit like making your Diplomacy checks much better when you do.. or giving you access to certain spells if you have the right language... etc.




*shrug* It's only daft if your goal in designing a character is to make a character who will win. Timmy isn't worried about that. Yes, when he gets into a combat encounter, he wants to win it just like everybody else, but the _reason_ he wants to win it is that it's what his character would want. If his character would want to lose, for whatever reason, then that's what he wants.

Timmy has a vision of the character in his head and he builds, and plays, to fit that vision. He takes very much to heart the mantra that you can't win D&D - in contrast to Spike, for whom "winning D&D" is what it's all about.

And yes, I picked a deliberately "sub-optimal" combination (elf warlock with Linguist) as an example, to show that Timmy doesn't mind if his build is sub-optimal. It's simply not a problem for him. "Build" and "sub-optimal" are not in his gaming vocabulary.

As for making Linguist useful when a player takes it - sure, the DM can and should do that. But it doesn't change the player dynamic. If Linguist becomes a strong mechanical choice, then Spike will grab it next time he levels up, because Spike sees everything in mechanical terms. Meanwhile Timmy will take Linguist if it fits his concept, and not if it doesn't, regardless of whether the DM gives him goodies for it.


----------



## kilpatds (Nov 10, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> I've read them and I admit some are better than others.  I just disagreed with about 90% of the advice given in the Avenger one.




Can I ask you to post in the thread with your concerns and suggestions?  The guide is improved by many viewpoints, especially different viewpoints.



Majoru Oakheart said:


> I found that as I was going through the list of powers, it would often say "Don't take this power, it only does 2[w] which is way too low for a Striker power of this level, instead, if you can, multiclass into Rogue and take this power instead".




I'm having a hard time guessing what power you're specifically referring to...



kaomera said:


> I wanted to discuss this, but unfortunately neither of the Avenger Handbooks that I can currently find seem to be complete enough to actually have a powers section at the moment...




He's refering to mine, which is here.  There may be some internal link issues, but I believe it to be complete except for 1 build and the equipment.  I can't find the energy to port the equipment information over to the wiki.


----------



## nightwyrm (Nov 10, 2009)

I don't think we're doing a very good job of translating Magic archetypes into D&D here...first of all, the three archetypes have nothing to do with whether you roleplay or not. The three describes how you go about building your deck, or in this case your character.

Timmy likes big effects. Translated into D&D, he likes big damage, hitting lots of enemies etc. He's the guy who likes the 3e ubercharger or a blaster who uses a ton of metamagics to boost his fireball damage. He breaks things so he can enjoy the effect it will have on the game.

Johnny likes to find hidden synergies and interactions. In D&D, he likes to mix and match class features, feats, powers etc. to create something no one has thought of before. He's the guy who's playing a gish by combining 5 or 6 classes. He enjoys breaking things that seemed useless or weak at first glance. He's the dude who breaks mystic theurge by using ur-priest or likes being the first person to successfully make pun-pun at first level. He breaks things because he enjoys the challenge of breaking things.

Spike likes to win, but that's problematic when translating into D&D. I'd say that a D&D Spike likes efficiency. He's the guy who loves his SoD. He's the one who first understood the power of grease and glitterdust. The one who invents scry and die. He's the one who figures out the Cleric makes a better fighter than the fighter. His wizard is one level below everyone so he can ride the XP gravy train to craft a ton of stuff. He breaks things because he figures that it's more efficient to play the game in a way the game designers never thought about.

All three archetypes can be optimizers. They just prefer to optimize for different things.


----------



## PoeticJustice (Nov 10, 2009)

Dausuul said:


> *shrug* It's only daft if your goal in designing a character is to make a character who will win. Timmy isn't worried about that. Yes, when he gets into a combat encounter, he wants to win it just like everybody else, but the _reason_ he wants to win it is that it's what his character would want. If his character would want to lose, for whatever reason, then that's what he wants.
> 
> Timmy has a vision of the character in his head and he builds, and plays, to fit that vision. He takes very much to heart the mantra that you can't win D&D - in contrast to Spike, for whom "winning D&D" is what it's all about.
> 
> ...




One must also realize, as the article on mtg.com points out, that few are one archetype and one archetype only--most people have a primary mindset and hints of one or both of the other archetypes guiding their thinking. Some share the considerations of two archetypes equally. Some try and achieve all three simultaneously, because much as some might like to believe it, winning big, winning creatively, and winning competitively are not mutually exclusive.

What you describe, Dausuul, is actually another archetype (or non-archetype, depends who you ask) called Vorthos. Ironically named for D&D character played by a mtg.com staffer, Vorthos spits in the eye of winning as a goal. To Vorthos, the inferior mechanic is one that does not directly correlate to the story. Indeed, winning--contextually defined as defeating one's M:tg opponent--is absolutely irrelevant to Vorthos, who just wants to build a functioning deck comprised of cards that all depict the same battle, or all have flavor text spoken by the same character, or represent characters that are plot-correct (a weatherlight deck that features all the crew, for instance).

Let's review

1. Spike ("optimizer") takes Linguist because he's traveling to a land where common is not spoken and he wants to be able to communicate normally. He retrains it away as soon as he leaves the land. If there was a feat that did something better than allowing one to speak, Spike would take that instead. Ceteris Paribus, there is no feat better than speech.

2. Johnny ("combo player") takes linguist because a paragon path requires one to speak Elvish. If the paragon path required another feat, he'd take that one instead. Power and optimization is secondary to working toward a mechanical goal.

3. Timmy ("power gamer") takes linguist because it allows him to speak the seven words that makes a woman fall in love with him. Timmy wants BOLD! SWEEPING! RESULTS! with less complexity than Johnny's combo and less nuanced than Spike's comparatively utilitarian build. Timmy seeks the awesome, the legendary. Spike's archer build might be better overall, but can Spike get a woman to fall in love with him by saying seven words?

4. Vorthos ("?") takes linguist because his background mentions his ability to speak more languages than his race would ordinarily let him.

I know this is a long post, but it's a complex topic. The essentials articles probably do not optimize very well. On the other hand, the Paladin handbook reads a lot like the local M:tg crowd describing the metagame.


----------



## Dausuul (Nov 10, 2009)

Hmm... okay. PoeticJustice has a point; it's been a while since I read the definitions.

So, substitute "Vorthos" for "Timmy" in my posts above. However, while Vorthos's tastes don't really affect Magic gameplay - Mark Rosewater claims he belongs in his own category, separate from Johnny/Timmy/Spike - they have a huge impact on D&D, where flavor actually affects the mechanical game. Indeed, many of the big debates on these forums boil down to a running battle between Vorthos and Spike that's been going on since the birth of the game.


----------



## nightwyrm (Nov 10, 2009)

Since we're talking about Vorthos, might as well throw in Malvin as well.

Although...do we even have Malvins in D&D?


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Nov 10, 2009)

nightwyrm said:


> Since we're talking about Vorthos, might as well throw in Malvin as well.
> 
> Although...do we even have Malvins in D&D?




ok, what are those?? can you catch me up...


----------



## nightwyrm (Nov 10, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> ok, what are those?? can you catch me up...




Very simply put, Vorthos appreciates good flavour, Malvins appreciates well thought out mechanics.  It's kind of a feel/think dicotomy.

More detail here:
Melvin and Vorthos : Daily MTG : Magic: The Gathering


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 10, 2009)

Magic's gamer terminology is decent, but its animal terminology is better.


----------



## nightwyrm (Nov 10, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> Magic's gamer terminology is decent, but its animal terminology is better.




So...you wanna fight baloths and hundroogs in D&D.


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 10, 2009)

nightwyrm said:


> So...you wanna fight baloths and hundroogs in D&D.



No, the whole spider/rattlesnake/etc format for classification of card powers.


----------



## nightwyrm (Nov 10, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> No, the whole spider/rattlesnake/etc format for classification of card powers.




Oh those, I forgot about them. I think they're terms more often used in a multiplayer environment and I only play limited two player games so I don't really think about classifying cards in that manner.


----------



## Dausuul (Nov 10, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> No, the whole spider/rattlesnake/etc format for classification of card powers.




That sounds interesting, but I've never heard of it... don't suppose you've got a link?


----------



## nightwyrm (Nov 10, 2009)

Dausuul said:


> That sounds interesting, but I've never heard of it... don't suppose you've got a link?




Alongi’s Fabulous 500! : Daily MTG : Magic: The Gathering

Scroll to the bottom, it's got a nice description.  I couldn't seem to find the original article.


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 10, 2009)

Dausuul said:


> That sounds interesting, but I've never heard of it... don't suppose you've got a link?



The article nightwyrm linked is pretty good.

I mostly like it because it really helps separate out how things that are very similar in concept can be very, very different in actual outcome.

Let me give you an example using D&D powers.  Suppose we had two powers, which read

1. Immediate Interrupt.  Trigger: An enemy hits or misses you.  Attack the triggering creature for: Intelligence versus Reflex, 2d6+Int fire damage and 5 ongoing fire damage.

2. Effect.  Until the end of your next turn you gain the following: Immediate Interrupt.  Trigger: An enemy hits or misses you.  Attack the triggering creature for: Intelligence versus Reflex, 2d6+Int fire damage and 5 ongoing fire damage.

These are really, really similar.  But very different in play.  The first is a Spider power.  Your enemy doesn't expect it, they foolishly attack you, and you light them on fire.  The second is a Rattlesnake power.  Your enemy DOES expect it.  Your enemy knows that attacking you will result in being lit on fire.  So your enemy probably chooses to attack someone else.

The first power gets its strength from being used.  The second gets its strength from NOT being used, but rather from threatening your enemies with its potential use and causing them to change their behavior as a result.

The first power is great if you don't mind getting hit in order to deal more damage.  The second power is great if you don't want to get hit at all, and don't mind not getting to deal damage.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Nov 10, 2009)

Nightson said:


> Against an enemy that are hard to hit depending on what portion your strength bonus is of your static modifiers.
> When attacking with an OA after getting heavy blade opportunity.
> When the enemy less health then you have static damage modifiers.
> 
> All situations in which Sure Strike outperforms a melee basic attack




One of which occurs at level 11, one of which should not actually occur in a game run according to the challenge guidelines, and the last which requires pin-point assessment of the number of hitpoints your foe has AND for you to not have cleave OR only have a single weak foe to dispatch.

In other words, because this is a set of guidelines for newbies, not for people who count their foes hitpoints or plan their character 11 levels ahead (and apparently don't know how to retrain), sure strike is a silly thing to recommend.



UngeheuerLich said:


> Sure strike e.g. can be a blessing if you know a monster is barely on his feet with 1 or 2 hp left, where any excess damage is just wasted. Especially if you are using bloodclaw, weapon focus and leader damage riders, the difference is maximum 9 damage at level 28. (If you are not using an axe or hammer where i can actually be 16)
> Just for Dausuul: i still wouldn´t take sure strike on most builds. I would rather take an encounter or daily which trades damage for accuracy then.




So... by your own admission, and even optimizing for one of the perfect cases for sure strike, you STILL wouldn't take it.

Yeah, real good power there.



Majoru Oakheart said:


> I've read them and I admit some are better than others.  I just disagreed with about 90% of the advice given in the Avenger one.  I found that as I was going through the list of powers, it would often say "Don't take this power, it only does 2[w] which is way too low for a Striker power of this level, instead, if you can, multiclass into Rogue and take this power instead".  Then I looked at the power and said "Well, it isn't the greatest power in the world but it encourages enemies to stay beside me and attack me which is the primary goal of my character...it doesn't do that much damage but if all the enemies attack you, it does way more damage.  I think I'm going to take it."
> 
> Meanwhile the handbook claimed it was the worst power of its level.  It didn't go into any explanation as to why it might be a GOOD power some of the time or even say some builds of Avenger might want it.  It just said "not worth taking...too low damage, and as a striker all you want is damage".



Yeah, the CharOp boards are a little too stuck to the designation of striker as someone who does lots of damage, and they don't like anything that deviates. Hence the hate for the warlock and the proliferation of not-really-avenger avengers.

Doubly so, damage is very measurable, so again it gets emphasised for strikers.

But outside of that typically the authors of the guides are willing to entertain discussion and alter the guide if you have good points. For instance one of the rogue guides rated garotte as an awful power at one stage with no mention of the fact that a decently built rogue can use it and a couple of other powers to guarantee killing just about anything.


----------



## Garthanos (Nov 11, 2009)

Dausuul said:


> Hmm... okay. PoeticJustice has a point; it's been a while since I read the definitions.
> 
> So, substitute "Vorthos" for "Timmy" in my posts above. However, while Vorthos's tastes don't really affect Magic gameplay - Mark Rosewater claims he belongs in his own category, separate from Johnny/Timmy/Spike - they have a huge impact on D&D, where flavor actually affects the mechanical game. Indeed, many of the big debates on these forums boil down to a running battle between Vorthos and Spike that's been going on since the birth of the game.




Flavor affects game experience but not necessarily "game"... at least not often or much (I  do give boosts to character performance when player narrative syncs particularly well with features in the environment)  I have played rpg's where narrative dominated the action resolution mechanics. In comparison to these D&D is and pretty much always has been roll the dice then paste flavor on top of mechanics ( and it used to feel like that part was all the DM's job, atleast now in 4e it actively encourages player involvement.)

And umm if they didnt have cool art and flavor on the entire MTG game premise I would have never bought mtg cards so I dont think the divergence or degree of divergence is what you think...


----------



## Garthanos (Nov 11, 2009)

nightwyrm said:


> Very simply put, Vorthos appreciates good flavour, Malvins appreciates well thought out mechanics.  It's kind of a feel/think dicotomy.




I've always liked both those.. but honestly I experience both through atleast partially a Johnny lense.... interacting with elegant mechanics via cool combos visualized with awesome narrative.... 

And I want to win... (again the role playing definition of win.... I want my character and my design choices have significant amount of screen time... and be significant to the unfolding story, I want my character to win the battles and properly support his allies too.. in part because I like happy stories  and getting the snot beat out of you and yours just isnt very happy.... is that spikey?


----------



## PoeticJustice (Nov 11, 2009)

Dausuul said:


> Hmm... okay. PoeticJustice has a point; it's been a while since I read the definitions.
> 
> So, substitute "Vorthos" for "Timmy" in my posts above. However, while Vorthos's tastes don't really affect Magic gameplay - Mark Rosewater claims he belongs in his own category, separate from Johnny/Timmy/Spike - they have a huge impact on D&D, where flavor actually affects the mechanical game. Indeed, many of the big debates on these forums boil down to a running battle between Vorthos and Spike that's been going on since the birth of the game.




Assuming a M:tg standard, we're all Vorthos here. D&D doesn't have the rigid structure nor the adversarial nature nor the competitive environment necessary to make being a Vorthos significantly different from another type of gamer. The Elf Archer player who picks weapon focus or whatever isn't a Spike--he's a Spike/vorthos. 

At least he would be, by the Magic Standard--the player probably doesn't play the most efficient build to beat his DM into submission and crush every single encounter. He probably plays an Elf Archer because he likes Elf, Archers, or is curious about the experience. He likely has one or two races or classes he prefers and a few he would never play. It likely has less bearing on power levels than personal preference, though.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Nov 11, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> The article nightwyrm linked is pretty good.
> 
> I mostly like it because it really helps separate out how things that are very similar in concept can be very, very different in actual outcome.
> 
> ...




That is a great way of explaining the problem someone had with the Avenger CharOp guide. It was a guide on turning the Avenger from a rattlesnake into a spider.

EDIT:

On the Spike/Timmy/Johnny thing:

Any of them can optimize. The difference is _what_ do they optimize. For Timmy it would be finding a way to deal the most damage. Some of the "how to make the biggest attack in a single turn" builds would work that way. It may not necessarily have the best dps, but it builds for the once per day bombs and stuff like that. For Johnny, they find a combination (like Eyebite with Divine Challenge) and find a way to optimize it. Spike doesn't just optimize something, but optimizes the optimal choice in the first place. For example, if Spike is going to be a striker, he won't optimize a warlock because an optimized warlock isn't as "good" as an optimized striker of another class.

EDIT 2: Electric Boogaloo

Vorthos/Melvin is definitely something that fits into D&D. From a design perspective it seems to fit sort of top down design vs. bottom up design. For Vorthos, the mechanics should fit the flavor while for Melvin, great mechanics are important, and the flavor can come in later. I'm a total Melvin, and I really appreciate some of the mechanical unity of 4e class design as a result. The Warlord and Warden could be seen as Melvin type concepts (creating a new class for the role/power source combinations that are "necessary" to fill things out) while the Monk is the redheaded stepchild of the psionics in part because it's more important that it "be the monk" than for it to be forced into fitting into the mechanical "whole" of psionics.


----------



## Jhaelen (Nov 11, 2009)

Wow! I'd never thought this thread could be turned into an interesting discussion


----------



## EarthSeraphEdna (Nov 12, 2009)

I am sorry, everyone, but Timmy/Johnny/Spike/Vorthos/Melvin does not fit into 4e at all. It's already a controversial topic for Magic players, but trying to apply it into 4e is like trying to apply the concept of rare/medium rare/medium/medium into ice cream. Categorizing player types is dumber than horoscopes, and Timmy/Johnny/Spike/Vorthos/Melvin don't even align with the usual gamist/narrativist/simulationist categorization, which is an entirely different beast.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Nov 12, 2009)

Actually, the gamist/narrativist/simulationist categorization isn't meant to align with player archetypes either.

I recommend (if we're talking 4e) that we use the DMG/DMG2 archetypes.  I don't have my DMG2 here with me so I can't list them.  Anyone else available to list the player types from 4e DMG/DMG2?

EDIT:  Here they are:

The Actor
The Explorer
The Instigator
The Power Gamer
The Slayer
The Storyteller
The Thinker
The Watcher


----------



## FireLance (Nov 12, 2009)

Adslahnit said:


> I am sorry, everyone, but Timmy/Johnny/Spike/Vorthos/Melvin does not fit into 4e at all. It's already a controversial topic for Magic players, but trying to apply it into 4e is like trying to apply the concept of rare/medium rare/medium/medium into ice cream. Categorizing player types is dumber than horoscopes, and Timmy/Johnny/Spike/Vorthos/Melvin don't even align with the usual gamist/narrativist/simulationist categorization, which is an entirely different beast.



I don't think categorizing player types is "dumb". If nothing else, it's an exercise in thinking about what different players might want out of an RPG. I will admit that Timmy/Johnny/Spike/Vorthos/Melvin is more mechanics-focused and less extensive than Robin Laws' Tactician/Power Gamer/Butt Kicker/Specialist/Method Actor/Storyteller/Casual Gamer categories, but it does present insight into (for example) why some players prefer high-damage powers even if it can be shown mathematically that the extra damage is wasted most of the time, and another lower-damage power is the better choice in the long run. Playing an RPG isn't only about mechanical effectiveness to many players, and they (we?) are willing to sacrifice some mechanical effectiveness for other considerations: flavor, or a personal preference for certain types of abilities or to create certain types of effects.

Incidentally, the simple reason why player categorizations don't align with G/N/S is that one deals with player types and the other deals with games and game mechanics. It's like complaining that the mammal/bird/reptile/amphibian categorizations don't align with the igneous/sedimenary/metamorphic categories for rocks.


----------



## chitzk0i (Nov 12, 2009)

Adslahnit said:


> I am sorry, everyone, but Timmy/Johnny/Spike/Vorthos/Melvin does not fit into 4e at all. It's already a controversial topic for Magic players, but trying to apply it into 4e is like trying to apply the concept of rare/medium rare/medium/medium into ice cream. Categorizing player types is dumber than horoscopes, and Timmy/Johnny/Spike/Vorthos/Melvin don't even align with the usual gamist/narrativist/simulationist categorization, which is an entirely different beast.




I don't think the Magic psychographics fit D&D _exactly_, but there is some truth to them.   The profiles are expressions of some basic motivations that pop up in D&D as well as Magic.  

As for "dumber than horoscopes": people pick powers for a reason.  Trying to figure out those reasons is not that bad of an endeavor.


----------



## PoeticJustice (Nov 12, 2009)

Adslahnit said:


> I am sorry, everyone, but Timmy/Johnny/Spike/Vorthos/Melvin does not fit into 4e at all. It's already a controversial topic for Magic players, but trying to apply it into 4e is like trying to apply the concept of rare/medium rare/medium/medium into ice cream. Categorizing player types is dumber than horoscopes, and Timmy/Johnny/Spike/Vorthos/Melvin don't even align with the usual gamist/narrativist/simulationist categorization, which is an entirely different beast.




Categorizing things is a method of understanding them. Approaching things from another perspective often yields results. So rather than just shouting out about how the entire premise is flawed, why don't you actually comment on the analysis given by any of the posters?


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Nov 12, 2009)

WalterKovacs said:


> That is a great way of explaining the problem someone had with the Avenger CharOp guide. It was a guide on turning the Avenger from a rattlesnake into a spider.



Yes, this is precisely my point.  I think the Avenger design was supposed to be very rattlesnake like.  I didn't fully realize this until I saw the feat that gave you a bonus to your AC against all targets other than your Oath.

When I first read it, my thought was "But you WANT to get hit by everyone other than your Oath, it gives you more damage."  Then I realized that the point of the class feature wasn't supposed to be damage.  It was supposed to encourage all the enemies NOT to attack you because they'll just give you more damage.


----------



## Runestar (Nov 12, 2009)

Then you will have to credit CO for their creativity and ability to think outside the box, being able to turn what should have been a defensive ability into an offensive power. 

But seriously, does it really matter how a class is "supposed" to be played?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 12, 2009)

Runestar said:


> Then you will have to credit CO for their creativity and ability to think outside the box, being able to turn what should have been a defensive ability into an offensive power.
> 
> But seriously, does it really matter how a class is "supposed" to be played?



It might if we are talking about a newbie that wants to learn the class. It seems a little confusing if the core book says: "Do X" and then the Essential say: "Don't do X, do the opposite!".


----------



## Jhaelen (Nov 12, 2009)

Adslahnit said:


> I am sorry, everyone, but Timmy/Johnny/Spike/Vorthos/Melvin does not fit into 4e at all. It's already a controversial topic for Magic players, but trying to apply it into 4e is like trying to apply the concept of rare/medium rare/medium/medium into ice cream. Categorizing player types is dumber than horoscopes, and Timmy/Johnny/Spike/Vorthos/Melvin don't even align with the usual gamist/narrativist/simulationist categorization, which is an entirely different beast.



I wonder why this reaction doesn't surprise me...

Trying to apply a model to approximate reality (even if doesn't capture every aspect or is even plain wrong regarding minor aspects) is one of the most useful approaches to explain things (as you might have noticed had you read some of the posts above).

Dismissing articles on game design outright, imho, shows an appaling lack of insight, which makes me question every advice you might choose to give - unless, of course, you're just regurgitating the insights others have had before you.


----------



## fuzzlewump (Nov 12, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> When I first read it, my thought was "But you WANT to get hit by everyone other than your Oath, it gives you more damage."  Then I realized that the point of the class feature wasn't supposed to be damage.  It was supposed to encourage all the enemies NOT to attack you because they'll just give you more damage.



If the intention was solely to make enemies not attack you, I think the problem is in the design of the class. It would make more sense to give a penalty to the attack or a bonus to defenses from targets other than your oath rather than a damage increase. I personally think that was part of the design. I see it as the Avenger picking his target, and walking confidently past other enemies thus provoking. It makes less sense if he's already on his target, runs away to provoke then comes back, but hey, it works for me.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Nov 12, 2009)

I think in general the avenger design is to isolate a target and wear it down OR to kill it quick because it's buddies don't get the message.

Essentially: it's designed to be an alternative way to get the striker job done, but if the DM ignores that and tries to kill you first, then you fall back to being a more normal deal-lots-of-damage-quickly type avenger.


----------



## kilpatds (Nov 12, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> Yes, this is precisely my point.  I think the Avenger design was supposed to be very rattlesnake like.  I didn't fully realize this until I saw the feat that gave you a bonus to your AC against all targets other than your Oath.




That specific feat still hurts my brain.

IMHO, the censure features for Pursuit and Retribution are intended to act as rattlesnakes to better allow you to use your Oath of Enmity rerolls.

A Retribution Avenger should stay in one place, and use the rattlesnake features to force enemies to move away and engage in combat elsewhere.  The feature acts as "soft control" to get the enemies to leave the Avenger and his/her target alone.

Now take that feat, rephrasing: "Enemies that are not your Oath target take a penalty to hit you."  This reduces the fangs of your already existing rattlesnake feature, by making it safer for the enemy to stay near you.  This makes it more likely that the enemy WILL stay near you for more turns, which makes it harder for you to apply your Oath of Enmity feature.

Now, it also gives you a second rattlesnake feature ("You won't hit me anyway, so I don't know why you're bothering"), but it weakens the one you got for free, and costs you a feat in the process.  And that's why I rated it Red.

(But still, more feedback welcome.  Including "well, why didn't you put paragraph in the guide, you arrogant twit" if that's your reaction)


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Nov 12, 2009)

Sorry, I'm going to have to agree that the MtG player archtypes don't apply to D&D.  MtG is, at it's heart, a _competitive_ game.  D&D is not.

As for how useful it is to file people away into blank catagories...

All <ethnicity> does <stereotype>

_I'm just trying to be useful, guys!_


----------



## Dausuul (Nov 12, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> As for how useful it is to file people away into blank catagories...
> 
> All <ethnicity> does <stereotype>
> 
> _I'm just trying to be useful, guys!_




If that was supposed to prove a point, I'm at a loss as to what or how.


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 12, 2009)

kilpatds said:


> Now take that feat, rephrasing: "Enemies that are not your Oath target take a penalty to hit you."  This reduces the fangs of your already existing rattlesnake feature, by making it safer for the enemy to stay near you.  This makes it more likely that the enemy WILL stay near you for more turns, which makes it harder for you to apply your Oath of Enmity feature.



That doesn't make sense.  Are you hypothesizing that enemies that stay next to the Avenger will accidentally attack him even though they didn't want to, triggering the Retributive feature, and that its therefore "safer" for them if the Avenger has a higher armor class, so that when they involuntarily attack him, they'll miss, which is what they would have wanted?

I can understand rating it down because you feel that the Retributive feature is already adequate, or because there's a slight diminishing returns going on (though I think gamers are overly averse to diminishing returns, amongst other things...).  But as things stand your reasoning doesn't make sense.  If your goal as an Avenger is to never get attacked by adjacent enemies other than your oath target, both a high AC and the Retributive feature are pulling in the same direction.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Nov 12, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Sorry, I'm going to have to agree that the MtG player archtypes don't apply to D&D.  MtG is, at it's heart, a _competitive_ game.  D&D is not.
> 
> As for how useful it is to file people away into blank catagories...
> 
> ...




the problem is that stereotypes start somewhere...(by the way there are good and bad sterotypes) It is why we can use profileing to find out about criminals. The trick is to truely profile you need ALOT of information...

the myers-briggs test is a great example of how you can work it to find out LOTS about yourself...

The trick is noone IS spike, noone IS Malvin, but then again this type of arguement goes back way father in D&D history... Noone IS lawful good, you just lean that way...


I bet if half the math experts here on enworld could get 1 or 2 psycologist/mental experts of soem type, and work on it for a year or two we could have a great test just like the myers-Briggs

on a scale from x-y I am a A
on a scale from B-C I am a Z... ect ect

If we found atleast 5 axeises we could very easily identify who wants what...




Now the problem is the classic profiles...(mostly bad stereotypes) witch lead to discrimnation and Prejudice (witch is PRE judgeing...if you get to know soemone and still don't like there style/personality/ect that is Judgeing not prejudice)


----------



## kilpatds (Nov 12, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> That doesn't make sense.  Are you hypothesizing that enemies that stay next to the Avenger will accidentally attack him even though they didn't want to, triggering the Retributive feature, and that its therefore "safer" for them if the Avenger has a higher armor class, so that when they involuntarily attack him, they'll miss, which is what they would have wanted?




I'm suggesting that them missing more will prevent the extra damage feature from being noticed by the DM, and thus reduce the chances of it affecting the monsters tactical decisions.


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 12, 2009)

But the AC bonus does the same thing as the Retributive feature in terms of influencing monster tactics- influence the DM to have the monster attack someone else.

Your argument is like saying that its a waste for a poisonous animals to be good at hiding from enemies, because if it hides then there's less of a chance that a predator will be deterred by the poison.  Maybe there's a diminishing return, but they both lead to the same end result of the animal not getting eaten.


----------



## kilpatds (Nov 12, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> Your argument is like saying that its a waste for a poisonous animals to be good at hiding from enemies, because if it hides then there's less of a chance that a predator will be deterred by the poison.  Maybe there's a diminishing return, but they both lead to the same end result of the animal not getting eaten.




I'll note that many poisonous animals are horrible at hiding from enemies, and have bright flash colors to advertise their poisonous nature. 

(A +1 to defenses is much less apparently in play than "Hey, DM.  Because that guy hit me, I just did 5 more damage." unless you're really good at talking it up.  So yes, I feel that you're reducing the flashy deterrent that the DM can see for a hidden one that won't be noticed.)


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 12, 2009)

But you're reducing it by an amount which, BY YOUR OWN ARGUMENT, is so trivially small that no one will notice it.

But an amount that does actually cause some hits to become misses.


----------



## Nifft (Nov 12, 2009)

kilpatds said:


> I'll note that many poisonous animals are horrible at hiding from enemies, and have bright flash colors to advertise their poisonous nature.



 You won't see all the spiders who disagree with you... until it is far too late.

"_Mua-ha-ha!_", -- N


----------



## Wayside (Nov 13, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> As for how useful it is to file people away into blank catagories...
> 
> All <ethnicity> does <stereotype>



All <vegans> do <not eat animal products>.

Do you see where you went wrong?


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Nov 13, 2009)

Wayside said:


> All <vegans> do <not eat animal products>.
> 
> Do you see where you went wrong?




oww this can be fun...

All <cops> do <carry guns>.
All <fighters> do <specialize in melee>
All <dogs> do <go to heaven>
All <jedi> do <use the force>


----------



## Garthanos (Nov 13, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> oww this can be fun...
> 
> All <cops> do <carry guns>.



shields... not guns


GMforPowergamers said:


> All <fighters> do <specialize in melee>



unless they are archers.



GMforPowergamers said:


> All <dogs> do <go to heaven>




my neighbors dog that barked every morning
for about an hour would have gone the other place



GMforPowergamers said:


> All <jedi> do <use the force>



or are used by it


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Nov 13, 2009)

Garthanos said:


> shields... not guns
> unless they are archers.
> my neighbors dog that barked every morning
> for about an hour would have gone the other place
> or are used by it




I hope you know I just was jokeing with that post...


----------



## Garthanos (Nov 13, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I hope you know I just was jokeing with that post...



well of course


----------



## EarthSeraphEdna (Nov 13, 2009)

FireLance said:


> Incidentally, the simple reason why player categorizations don't align with G/N/S is that one deals with player types and the other deals with games and game mechanics. It's like complaining that the mammal/bird/reptile/amphibian categorizations don't align with the igneous/sedimenary/metamorphic categories for rocks.




I had never stated that G/N/S was more correct than Timmy/Johnny/Spike/Melvin/Vorthos. For this matter, the former would probably be even more incorrect; it is simply that the former tends to get thrown around more as a player stereotype (even though it is meant for game design).


----------



## WalterKovacs (Nov 15, 2009)

Nifft said:


> You won't see all the spiders who disagree with you... until it is far too late.
> 
> "_Mua-ha-ha!_", -- N




Spiders have poisonous bites ... I believe he was refering to things like the colorful frogs that are poisonous if eaten. Method of catching prey vs. defense mechanism.


----------



## Xris Robin (Nov 15, 2009)

Bites are _venomous.  __Poisonous _is something toxic when eaten or touched.


----------



## AllisterH (Nov 15, 2009)

This may sound silly, but if we're going to use categories, why not use the ones that the 4e DMGs refer to?

Honestly, they seem WAY more appropriate/useful than the magic categories.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Nov 15, 2009)

catsclaw227 said:


> I recommend (if we're talking 4e) that we use the DMG/DMG2 archetypes.  I don't have my DMG2 here with me so I can't list them.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...






AllisterH said:


> This may sound silly, but if we're going to use categories, why not use the ones that the 4e DMGs refer to?
> 
> Honestly, they seem WAY more appropriate/useful than the magic categories.



Exactly what I was trying to say a page or two ago.  It makes most sense.
And, like Robin Laws' categorizations,  most of us are a mix of more than one player archetype.


----------



## AllisterH (Nov 15, 2009)

Those classifications make more sense definitely.

I imagine most of the people who are troubled by the math are the power gamer types. The Slayer maybe as well since if he can't connect, he can't SLAY anything.


----------



## Garthanos (Nov 16, 2009)

Do they provide insight on power selection? There can be multiple valid analysis methods depending on the goals. If I want to recommend power selection how do those categories help?


----------



## AllisterH (Nov 16, 2009)

Garthanos said:


> Do they provide insight on power selection? There can be multiple valid analysis methods depending on the goals. If I want to recommend power selection how do those categories help?




I think they do for SOME, since the classifications are what the players want/get out of the game.

For example, the power gamer is always going to pick the sky-blue/best optimized power for their character.

Similarly, the Slayer is going to pick the power that makes the most impact on the board which may or may not be the "best" power.

However, the Thinker and Watcher? The latter probably doesn't care what power he has whereas the Thinker similarly, isn't looking for any specific optimized power.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Nov 17, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> This may sound silly, but if we're going to use categories, why not use the ones that the 4e DMGs refer to?
> 
> Honestly, they seem WAY more appropriate/useful than the magic categories.




Partially because of the same difference between Robin's Law stuff and the Magic archetypes.  The player categories tell you what each type of player wants out of the game.  It doesn't really tell you how they interact with the rule.

No matter how much of an "Actor" a player is, it won't really tell you whether that player likes a 2[w] power or a 1[w] power that dazes.  In fact, a number of the player types could care less what power they take each level since that isn't the focus of the game for them.  In fact, it's possible an "Actor" will use completely different criteria when evaluating game mechanics choices for their character than they would when making role playing choices for their character.

The Magic player types are much better at this sort of thing as they are specifically designed to see how people react to a small bit of game mechanics written on a card when compared to others.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Nov 25, 2009)

from the new sorcerer article up tonight...



> POWER GAMING, OR NOT
> The Essentials series tries to include a great deal
> of character-building advice as well as tactical
> advice for playing one of these characters at the
> ...





just to make sure everyone knows what I consider the important part here:


> *Rather, the goal of these articles is to
> give you the basics you need to play one of these
> classes if you’ve never done so before.
> We fully recognize that those of you who
> ...


----------



## Shroomy (Nov 25, 2009)

Yeah, I thought that was pretty funny when I read that.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 25, 2009)

Shroomy said:


> Yeah, I thought that was pretty funny when I read that.



I suppose this was triggered by board discussions like these - I am just surprised they got it into an article so fast!


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 25, 2009)

Although this article looks a lot like optimization with the advise of weapon expertise and 18/14/11/10/10/8 spread...


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 25, 2009)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Although this article looks a lot like optimization with the advise of weapon expertise and 18/14/11/10/10/8 spread...



Hehe, that is true. I found this unusually extreme. But maybe it's actually not that optimzied after all - your defenses won't look so great, and especially for the Strength based builds - losing on AC and Reflex defense should hurt...


----------



## Belphanior (Nov 25, 2009)

Yeah, I just read that sidebar at the end and thought: "well, somebody's been reading the forums haven't they?"

But I agree. The Essentials aren't there to provide the absolute top damage capability.


----------



## Jhaelen (Nov 25, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Hehe, that is true. I found this unusually extreme. But maybe it's actually not that optimzied after all - your defenses won't look so great, and especially for the Strength based builds - losing on AC and Reflex defense should hurt...



Well, that's what you get when you optimize something with limited resources:
Something else will always suffer.


----------



## Klaus (Nov 25, 2009)

Sidenote: the Sorcerer article claims the Druid is a Striker... :geno:


----------



## Garthanos (Nov 25, 2009)

Klaus said:


> Sidenote: the Sorcerer article claims the Druid is a Striker... :geno:




Well I think I've seen some charging optimized druids that make it feel like a feature of the class.


----------



## CapnZapp (Nov 25, 2009)

Jhaelen said:


> Well, that's what you get when you optimize something with limited resources:
> Something else will always suffer.



Isn't that the point of optimizing?!

Being allowed to put 18's in all stats may be "optimized", but not in an interesting way.


----------



## Klaus (Nov 25, 2009)

CapnZapp said:


> Isn't that the point of optimizing?!
> 
> Being allowed to put 18's in all stats may be "optimized", but not in an interesting way.



But optimized meand playing an optimal character, not a glass cannon, right?


----------

