PDA

View Full Version : [4e] The Essentials articles are atrocious.



Adslahnit
2009-11-07, 02:38 PM
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!"

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/thread/view/75882/19649038/Pillars_of_Faith_and_Facestabs_The_Paladins_Handbo ok
http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/20123797/The_True_Magus_A_Wizards_Handbook

Dragonmuncher
2009-11-07, 02:46 PM
{Scrubbed}

Heh, sorry.

But yeah, I agree- It's never been a good idea to turn to WotC for character building advice. If you did, all your 3.5 characters would have Endurance as a feat.

Kurald Galain
2009-11-07, 02:48 PM
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.

Wow, that's some really bad advice there. To be frank I've never paid attention to the "charop" advice given by WOTC staff.

AshDesert
2009-11-07, 03:10 PM
Eh, it's always been clear from all the charop advice (including the little nugget in the 3.5 DMG saying that no homebrew 1st level spell should be more powerful than the best 1st level spell, Magic Missile) they've ever given out that WotC has never actually played their games, it's not like we can expect them to suddenly become knowledgeable about how things in their game really work.

Gametime
2009-11-07, 03:21 PM
Eh, it's always been clear from all the charop advice (including the little nugget in the 3.5 DMG saying that no homebrew 1st level spell should be more powerful than the best 1st level spell, Magic Missile) they've ever given out that WotC has never actually played their games, it's not like we can expect them to suddenly become knowledgeable about how things in their game really work.

I find the assertion that anyone who plays D&D must immediately and naturally become an expert in its workings to be fundamentally, obviously, and demonstrably false.

Lots of people play for years and years and years and never even approach optimized characters.

AshDesert
2009-11-07, 03:27 PM
I find the assertion that anyone who plays D&D must immediately and naturally become an expert in its workings to be fundamentally, obviously, and demonstrably false.

Lots of people play for years and years and years and never even approach optimized characters.

Hyperbole. Then again, it's very hard to get sarcasm over the interwebs, so I can see your point. I'm not saying that anyone who plays has to be a super-optimizer (or that you even need to have a powerful character, I've had plenty of crappy characters that were fun to play), but, I find it a little ridiculous that the creators of the game don't even know what's optimal and what isn't.

Logalmier
2009-11-07, 03:30 PM
I find the assertion that anyone who plays D&D must immediately and naturally become an expert in its workings to be fundamentally, obviously, and demonstrably false.

Lots of people play for years and years and years and never even approach optimized characters.

That's true, but the people who made the game in the first place should be reasonably familiar with it. But from what they've showed us, they clearly aren't.

EDIT: Ninja'd...

Kurald Galain
2009-11-07, 03:30 PM
Ah, for what it's worth, not all information in the volunteer-written Guides on the WOTC forums is all that good, either. For instance, Treantmonk's famous "god guide to wizards" lists Elven Precision as one of the top-tier feats, which is something he clearly hasn't done the math on.

Oslecamo
2009-11-07, 03:35 PM
That's true, but the people who made the game in the first place should be reasonably familiar with it. But from what they've showed us, they clearly aren't.


A common misconception. Just because you created something, it doesn't mean other people won't be able to use it better than you. The creators are normaly thinking inside the box, while it's easier for us to think outside the box and find flaws that the creators never noticed.

The best example of this is hof Richard Garfield, the creator of MTG, got utterly crushed when he tried to play with a pro at a tournament of said game.

Logalmier
2009-11-07, 03:35 PM
Ah, for what it's worth, not all information in the volunteer-written Guides on the WOTC forums is all that good, either. For instance, Treantmonk's famous "god guide to wizards" lists Elven Precision as one of the top-tier feats, which is something he clearly hasn't done the math on.

I've never been a fan of Treantmonks guide for wizards. It just feels... lacking. I prefer to use LogicNinja's "Being Batman" myself.

But Treantmonk's guide is better than any wizard guide WotC has published.


A common misconception. Just because you created something, it doesn't mean other people won't be able to use it better than you. The creators are normaly thinking inside the box, while it's easier for us to think outside the box and find flaws that the creators never noticed.

The best example of this is hof Richard Garfield, the creator of MTG, got utterly crushed when he tried to play with a pro at a tournament of said game.

That's true... and I doubt I could make a better D&D system than WotC.

What they should of done is release 3rd edition, then let everyone who played it find a bunch of stuff that was wrong with it. Then they could just use the fixes that the players came up with, and incorporate that into version 3.5.

FoE
2009-11-07, 03:57 PM
Just because you created something, it doesn't mean other people won't be able to use it better than you.

The best example of this is how Richard Garfield, the creator of MTG, got utterly crushed when he tried to play with a pro at a tournament of said game.

Or like how Maximilion Pegasus totally got owned by Yugi Mutuo in Duel Monsters. :smalltongue:

Kurald Galain
2009-11-07, 04:02 PM
The best example of this is hof Richard Garfield, the creator of MTG, got utterly crushed when he tried to play with a pro at a tournament of said game.

On the other hand, Richard Garfield is not (to my knowledge) writing regular columns with advice for MTG strategy.

Mercenary Pen
2009-11-07, 04:32 PM
Or like how Maximilion Pegasus totally got owned by Yugi Mutuo in Duel Monsters. :smalltongue:

Though that one was actually a close run match- mostly because the guy had built his deck with cards that were ridiculously hard to beat with anything existing at the time.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-11-07, 04:36 PM
Or like how Maximilion Pegasus totally got owned by Yugi Mutuo in Duel Monsters. :smalltongue:

Ah, but Pegasus did not invent Duel Monsters, he merely repackaged an existing game into a pale imitation of its former glory - much like what 4 kids did to the show.

AshDesert
2009-11-07, 04:42 PM
On the other hand, Richard Garfield is not (to my knowledge) writing regular columns with advice for MTG strategy.

This. If Wizards were to come out and say that they're not as knowledgeable as some of the Char-Op people (and plug some of the better handbooks as the OP suggested), that would be understandable. But, they keep up this charade that they know all the best powers and feats, and then offer people that don't know any better sub-par advice packaged as the most optimal choices.

The Glyphstone
2009-11-07, 04:59 PM
Though that one was actually a close run match- mostly because the guy had built his deck with cards that were ridiculously hard to beat with anything existing at the time.

Actually, I'd give more credit to his ability to read his opponent's mind and predict the future...

Mercenary Pen
2009-11-07, 05:02 PM
Actually, I'd give more credit to his ability to read his opponent's mind and predict the future...

Whichever, both were true, and the mind reading was mostly effective during the earlier phases of the duel.

Oslecamo
2009-11-07, 07:07 PM
Whichever, both were true, and the mind reading was mostly effective during the earlier phases of the duel.

It doesn't change the fact that he's unable to actualy read the cards, since they're suposed to have the rules explained in them, yet he keeps running into obvious traps, let alone the actual trap cards.

Does this mean...That Maximilian is actualy based on real life people?:smalleek:

Doc Roc
2009-11-07, 07:25 PM
It doesn't change the fact that he's unable to actualy read the cards, since they're suposed to have the rules explained in them, yet he keeps running into obvious traps, let alone the actual trap cards.

Does this mean...That Maximilian is actualy based on real life people?:smalleek:

I always assumed that he literally couldn't read.

Starbuck_II
2009-11-07, 07:29 PM
No, he can read, but at a 1st grade level because he reads some word at some point to even go to egypt.

Mercenary Pen
2009-11-07, 07:36 PM
It doesn't change the fact that he's unable to actualy read the cards, since they're suposed to have the rules explained in them, yet he keeps running into obvious traps, let alone the actual trap cards.

Does this mean...That Maximilian is actualy based on real life people?:smalleek:

I may be mis-remembering, but I thought in his case he only needed the synergies explaining to him, because most of the cards Yugi used to defeat him had already been seen, and therefore didn't need to be explained again (especially since it was before most monster effects). If I recall correctly, it was pegasus who did most of the explaining beyond the situational combos involving Yugi's Living Arrow and Mystic Box spell cards.

Trog
2009-11-07, 07:56 PM
The entire Essentials line of articles of Dragon Magazine strikes me as wholly unnecessary and of noteworthily low quality.
Feel free to create a blog or web site full of better articles and show us all how it's done. :smallwink:

Fishy
2009-11-07, 08:19 PM
A common misconception. Just because you created something, it doesn't mean other people won't be able to use it better than you. The creators are normaly thinking inside the box, while it's easier for us to think outside the box and find flaws that the creators never noticed.

The best example of this is hof Richard Garfield, the creator of MTG, got utterly crushed when he tried to play with a pro at a tournament of said game.

In the computer science world, it's pretty much well understood that you simply can't check a system you designed for security vulnerabilities, and you shouldn't be the only one checking your code for bugs.

Apparently game design works the same way. Who knew?

Gralamin
2009-11-07, 08:31 PM
In the computer science world, it's pretty much well understood that you simply can't check a system you designed for security vulnerabilities, and you shouldn't be the only one checking your code for bugs.

Apparently game design works the same way. Who knew?

I'd actually bet that you can extend this to all proper design worlds. Heck, I hear people who draw like to be critiqued for mistakes. :smallamused:

Jothki
2009-11-07, 08:58 PM
They probably feel obligated to have some sort of official advice, instead of relying on the community to do everything. People are paying good money for the service, and not being able to do anything besides redirect people to a non-official source would be lame.

Teron
2009-11-07, 09:10 PM
Feel free to create a blog or web site full of better articles and show us all how it's done. :smallwink:
"I bet you can't do better" is a ridiculous argument. I've never flipped a burger in my life, yet I know that McDonald's is crap, because eating it is unpleasant and I can point at loads of places and people that make better burgers. Likewise, the OP pointed out what are apparently obvious flaws in WotC's advice (I don't play 4th Edition) and suggested better sources. That's enough.

Gralamin
2009-11-07, 09:12 PM
I follow the strategy of:
1) Ignore sections that don't have new mechanics
2) Read new mechanics
It works fine for me, and it really doesn't bug me that maybe 3 pages of useless stuff is in there as well.

Alteran
2009-11-07, 09:14 PM
They probably feel obligated to have some sort of official advice, instead of relying on the community to do everything. People are paying good money for the service, and not being able to do anything besides redirect people to a non-official source would be lame.

Would it be lamer than making something clearly worse than the non-official source?

Shadow_Elf
2009-11-07, 09:58 PM
I don't read the stuff on optimizing - I know when I make a character the concept I am trying to build (I pick specific fluff or a special gimmick to center a character around and then build it from there), so I just ignore the page or two of CharOp and skip to the new powers, feats and paragon paths, which I enjoy reading. For example, the Duelist Rogue article was great this month, as was the Wizards essentials last month, I thought.

Decoy Lockbox
2009-11-07, 10:11 PM
In the computer science world, it's pretty much well understood that you simply can't check a system you designed for security vulnerabilities, and you shouldn't be the only one checking your code for bugs.

Apparently game design works the same way. Who knew?

So I suppose the CharOp guys are the white hats, and the munchkins are the black?

I normally turn to charop guides when I can't decide between two powers, or when I see something and go "this can't be as bad as it looks".

Akal Saris
2009-11-08, 02:01 AM
Eh, as long as they include some crunch with their poor advice, I'm happy with them.

3.5 also had some terrible articles with advice for PCs - I remember their Dead Levels (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/cwc/20061013a) article referred to the barbarian and monk as "the finest examples of character class design" because they had no dead levels, which made me suddenly ill for a few seconds.

AstralFire
2009-11-08, 02:08 AM
"I bet you can't do better" is a ridiculous argument. I've never flipped a burger in my life, yet I know that McDonald's is crap, because eating it is unpleasant and I can point at loads of places and people that make better burgers. Likewise, the OP pointed out what are apparently obvious flaws in WotC's advice (I don't play 4th Edition) and suggested better sources. That's enough.

I like McDonald's.

I like Fuddruckers, TGI Friday's, and Red Robin better, but I like McDonald's.

Mando Knight
2009-11-08, 02:47 AM
3.5 also had some terrible articles with advice for PCs - I remember their Dead Levels (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/cwc/20061013a) article referred to the barbarian and monk as "the finest examples of character class design" because they had no dead levels, which made me suddenly ill for a few seconds.

From a dead-level only perspective, they are. The problems with the Monk are that it's incapable of using its biggest two abilities in the same round and that its other abilities are weaker (in either effect or uses/day) than what a spellcaster could do without sacrificing much utility. The Barbarian, IIRC, is better, but suffers mostly from the fact that not-CoDzilla melee can't have nice things.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-11-08, 02:54 AM
From a dead-level only perspective, they are. The problems with the Monk are that it's incapable of using its biggest two abilities in the same round and that its other abilities are weaker (in either effect or uses/day) than what a spellcaster could do without sacrificing much utility. The Barbarian, IIRC, is better, but suffers mostly from the fact that not-CoDzilla melee can't have nice things.

You can use fast movement to set up for FoB. The main problem is that other abilities are weak, MAD, 3/4 BaB, the fact that enhancement bonuses to movement won't stack with the monk's movement, and etc.

Optimystik
2009-11-08, 04:16 AM
Ah, but Pegasus did not invent Duel Monsters, he merely repackaged an existing game into a pale imitation of its former glory - much like what 4 kids did to the show.

Ba-zing.


From a dead-level only perspective, they are. The problems with the Monk are that it's incapable of using its biggest two abilities in the same round and that its other abilities are weaker (in either effect or uses/day) than what a spellcaster could do without sacrificing much utility. The Barbarian, IIRC, is better, but suffers mostly from the fact that not-CoDzilla melee can't have nice things.

I would argue that even from a dead-level perspective it's a problem. Having any ability in place of a dead level, no matter how awful, can mislead newer players - the same players that would be reading a WotC optimization article in the first place. They would then think that sticking with Monk or Barbarian instead of prestiging or multiclassing out is a good idea simply because they don't have many dead levels.

In other words, a level with an ability can still be a dead level if the ability is weak enough (Slow fall, Wholeness of Body etc.)

Trog
2009-11-08, 06:27 AM
"I bet you can't do better" is a ridiculous argument. I've never flipped a burger in my life, yet I know that McDonald's is crap, because eating it is unpleasant and I can point at loads of places and people that make better burgers. Likewise, the OP pointed out what are apparently obvious flaws in WotC's advice (I don't play 4th Edition) and suggested better sources. That's enough.
Please point to the part in my post where I said the exact words "I bet you can't do better."

Hint: You can't because that isn't what I said. Don't put words in my mouth and stop straw manning. :smallannoyed:

Artanis
2009-11-08, 11:33 AM
*noms on Chicken McNuggets*

Personally, I actually probably couldn't do any better, given that I once managed to start a kitchen fire while making Ramen :smallredface:

Yakk
2009-11-08, 12:22 PM
Odd stats aren't that bad. They do mean your level 28+ character isn't optimal, but that is merely the last 10% of your character's life (and a last 10% that most characters won't experience, quite honestly).

It does mean your low level character (the first 10%) isn't optimal either (as the odd stat doesn't grant much).

4-7 (4)
10-13 (4)
18-20 (3)
24-27 (4)
---
Odd stats are not 'wasted' over 15/30 character levels.

Alteran
2009-11-08, 12:39 PM
Please point to the part in my post where I said the exact words "I bet you can't do better."

Hint: You can't because that isn't what I said. Don't put words in my mouth and stop straw manning. :smallannoyed:

You didn't, but you did say something with a very similar implication.

He said:

The entire Essentials line of articles of Dragon Magazine strikes me as wholly unnecessary and of noteworthily low quality.
And you said:

Feel free to create a blog or web site full of better articles and show us all how it's done. :smallwink:

You strongly implied that since he couldn't create a large collection of better articles, his criticisms of the Essentials articles were invalid. I'm not sure what else you could have meant, but if this isn't it please do correct me.

If that is what you meant, then Teron's argument still works, even if you never said those exact words. The fact that Adslahnit couldn't do a better job than WotC has nothing to do with his ability to evaluate their work. All it means is that he also shouldn't be doing that, and I have to give him credit for the fact that he realizes this. Wizards shouldn't be giving out charop advice if that's the best they can do, but they are. They keep giving terrible advice to people who don't know any better.

And as Adslahnit also pointed out, there are free articles with much better advice. The fact that we couldn't do a better job matters even less now, since there are many people who can - and do. There's simply no excuse for these low-quality, misleading articles that people are paying money for.

Starbuck_II
2009-11-08, 01:13 PM
Eh, as long as they include some crunch with their poor advice, I'm happy with them.

3.5 also had some terrible articles with advice for PCs - I remember their Dead Levels (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/cwc/20061013a) article referred to the barbarian and monk as "the finest examples of character class design" because they had no dead levels, which made me suddenly ill for a few seconds.

No, in one sense they are finest examples. But the issue was that the features of the monk don't have synergy.

If the Monk could full attack and move then you wouldn't have issue. but they have no synergy. It was as if they grab bagged stuff they heard a Monk could do.

Kurald Galain
2009-11-08, 01:41 PM
Heck, I hear people who draw like to be critiqued for mistakes. :smallamused:
Correct, but for some reason, people who write usually don't like to be critiqued.

mikeejimbo
2009-11-08, 03:39 PM
I thought Dragon articles were usually written by freelancers?

Artanis
2009-11-08, 04:09 PM
Either way, WotC is still putting it in a publication that they charge people for.

Theodoric
2009-11-08, 04:14 PM
Either way, WotC is still putting it in a publication that they charge people for.
If people buy a product that isn't what they thought it was, it's their own fault.

Mordokai
2009-11-08, 04:23 PM
If people buy a product that isn't what they thought it was, it's their own fault.

Just how did you figure that?

Theodoric
2009-11-08, 04:33 PM
Just how did you figure that?
Magic. a wizard did it?

Trog
2009-11-08, 04:52 PM
You didn't, but you did say something with a very similar implication.

He said:

And you said:


You strongly implied that since he couldn't create a large collection of better articles, his criticisms of the Essentials articles were invalid. I'm not sure what else you could have meant, but if this isn't it please do correct me.

If that is what you meant, then Teron's argument still works, even if you never said those exact words. The fact that Adslahnit couldn't do a better job than WotC has nothing to do with his ability to evaluate their work. All it means is that he also shouldn't be doing that, and I have to give him credit for the fact that he realizes this. Wizards shouldn't be giving out charop advice if that's the best they can do, but they are. They keep giving terrible advice to people who don't know any better.

And as Adslahnit also pointed out, there are free articles with much better advice. The fact that we couldn't do a better job matters even less now, since there are many people who can - and do. There's simply no excuse for these low-quality, misleading articles that people are paying money for.
I didn't imply anything of the sort. You (and Teron) inferred that I disagree with the OP's criticisms.

While I have not read through the articles in question I do not find it beyond the realm of possibility that a player can come up with a better optimization than WotC does based simply on their past track record with the statting out of NPCs and the like in 3.x and before. Often they were sub-optimally built (from a min-max standpoint).

This might be to simply offer a baseline for beginning players to deal with but in my experience I often have to adjust encounters to be one to two levels higher to be a proper challenge. This is based on twenty years of playing and I've known this imbalance for at least a decade at least. Now granted 4e is certainly built different than 3.5 but I have found the same level adjustments to be be true for my group of min-maxers. They function well in the two to four levels above them range with ease. At the very beginning of playing 4e they were in the one to two levels range but as they got used to the system that changed rapidly.

Again I'm going to encourage the OP to offer his own builds. On further reflection perhaps he (or someone) could simply start a thread instead called "4e min-max build optimizations" and give his hints there. As could others. I know I for one would be interested in reading these sorts of things that others have discovered. And possibly participating when I am building a character myself (right now I am DMing and likely will be for the coming year, however).

And fer crying out loud the next person to tell me that I disagree with the OP gets a boot to the head. :smalltongue:

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-11-08, 04:52 PM
Just how did you figure that?

"Satisfaction is not guaranteed."
-19th Rule of Acquisition

Milskidasith
2009-11-08, 04:59 PM
I didn't imply anything of the sort. You (and Teron) inferred that I disagree with the OP's criticisms.

While I have not read through the articles in question I do not find it beyond the realm of possibility that a player can come up with a better optimization than WotC does based simply on their past track record with the statting out of NPCs and the like in 3.x and before. Often they were sub-optimally built (from a min-max standpoint).

This might be to simply offer a baseline for beginning players to deal with but in my experience I often have to adjust encounters to be one to two levels higher to be a proper challenge. This is based on twenty years of playing and I've known this imbalance for at least a decade at least. Now granted 4e is certainly built different than 3.5 but I have found the same level adjustments to be be true for my group of min-maxers. They function well in the two to four levels above them range with ease. At the very beginning of playing 4e they were in the one to two levels range but as they got used to the system that changed rapidly.

Again I'm going to encourage the OP to offer his own builds. On further reflection perhaps he (or someone) could simply start a thread instead called "4e min-max build optimizations" and give his hints there. As could others. I know I for one would be interested in reading these sorts of things that others have discovered. And possibly participating when I am building a character myself (right now I am DMing and likely will be for the coming year, however).

And fer crying out loud the next person to tell me that I disagree with the OP gets a boot to the head. :smalltongue:

So the entire purpose of the post was to say "Go write something better, even though it had already been specified that there are better written guides online so you could just use those?"

That's incorrect in an entirely different sense; rather than using the fallacy of saying we can't do better so we shouldn't complain, you are just telling us to do work we don't need to (since it's already been done). Even if we did write more guides, it wouldn't change that people would still be mislead by the "official" guides from WotC.

Mordokai
2009-11-08, 05:04 PM
Magic. a wizard did it?

Don't make me call the inquisition :smalltongue:

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-11-08, 05:11 PM
I didn't expect the inquisition.

Optimystik
2009-11-08, 05:12 PM
I didn't imply anything of the sort. You (and Teron) inferred that I disagree with the OP's criticisms.

You may not have intended it that way, but that's how it came across to me too. If everyone misunderstands you equally, the fault lies with your communication, not our understanding.

Trog
2009-11-08, 05:12 PM
So the entire purpose of the post was to say "Go write something better, even though it had already been specified that there are better written guides online so you could just use those?"
The entire purpose was to encourage a person who seemed to have a grasp on building well-optimized characters to offer his advice to others. Just because one person can do it and has done it doesn't mean that others cannot contribute, or even come up with something better.

You might all do well to notice the :smallwink: after my original post in this thread rather than a :smallannoyed:. Emoticons: apparently not helping people determine tone in print since 1982.


That's incorrect in an entirely different sense; rather than using the fallacy of saying we can't do better so we shouldn't complain, you are just telling us to do work we don't need to (since it's already been done). Even if we did write more guides, it wouldn't change that people would still be mislead by the "official" guides from WotC.
I never said that they weren't, as you put it, "misled."

And you, it seems, are the lucky winner of a boot to the head. *boots*

EDIT:

You may not have intended it that way, but that's how it came across to me too. If everyone misunderstands you equally, the fault lies with your communication, not our understanding.
Just because you assume that everyone on the internet is a snarky git doesn't make it their fault that they are not. Obviously from the way everyone is jumping down my throat on this the consensus is that I chose words that might imply otherwise. My bad in that respect. But it still was -never- my intent. :smallsigh:

Milskidasith
2009-11-08, 05:28 PM
I never said that they weren't, as you put it, "misled."

And you, it seems, are the lucky winner of a boot to the head. *boots*

Ah, the irony; You complain about us assuming things about your post, and then you assume things about mine. I was not saying you thought they weren't misled. I was merely saying that asking every optimizer to write their own newbies guide wouldn't do a damn thing to help WotC not be terrible.

Trog
2009-11-08, 05:54 PM
I am whatever you say I am. Everything you all say is correct. Everything I say is wrong. Everyone happy now? Fantastic.

I came in here to encourage the OP and all I get is crap for doing so and more crap for trying to explain myself afterward. *gives up on this thread*

EDIT: @v Then learn to role play better.

Chrono22
2009-11-08, 05:57 PM
^ I wish my PCs had that much drama.

Anyway- if you think the articles are bad, don't buy them. Speak with your money.

Milskidasith
2009-11-08, 05:59 PM
I am whatever you say I am. Everything you all say is correct. Everything I say is wrong. Everyone happy now? Fantastic.

I came in here to encourage the OP and all I get is crap for doing so and more crap for trying to explain myself afterward. *gives up on this thread*

Getting personally offended when somebody criticizes your post is a bit of an overraction, don't you think? All I'm saying is that you complained about people misrepresenting your post, and then misrepresented mine because you thought I was out to get you, rather than to discuss the issue. The issue is WotC's bad articles, not whether or not there are good guides online, because we know there are good guides online already.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-11-08, 06:00 PM
The thing is, speaking with our money would require not buying Insider at all - we can't selectively not pay for the Essentials articles. And if you're buying Insider in the first place, you've probably judged it to be worth it without the crap. Making a statement of "Hey, WotC, have less crap" at the cost of not having the new mechanics of Insider isn't an appealing trade.

Hashmir
2009-11-08, 06:01 PM
^ I wish my PCs had that much drama.

Anyway- if you think the articles are bad, don't buy them. Speak with your money.

Is money the only way we can communicate now? Isn't it much clearer to use words? I mean, I suspect that WotC won't look at their accounting books, see that someone stopped subscribing, and think to themselves, "Aha! Our Essentials articles give sub-optimal advice! We should change this!"

Optimystik
2009-11-08, 06:01 PM
^ I wish my PCs had that much drama.

Agreed. *Awards Emmy*

Chrono22
2009-11-08, 06:05 PM
Is money the only way we can communicate now? Isn't it much clearer to use words? I mean, I suspect that WotC won't look at their accounting books, see that someone stopped subscribing, and think to themselves, "Aha! Our Essentials articles give sub-optimal advice! We should change this!"
Sure. But who are you talking to? I can't make them stop writing bad articles.
A well-worded complaint to the writer might make a better impact than a rant on a forum that isn't even dedicated to the game in question.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-11-08, 06:10 PM
Oh, this thread was supposed to make a point? I just watched it to kill time and watch the dramatic argument.

If this thread was supposed to make a point, I would place it as "convince people to read the unofficial articles", not "convince WotC to stop making crap".

Trog
2009-11-08, 06:10 PM
Agreed. *Awards Emmy*
*thanks the academy and all the little people*

Optimystik
2009-11-08, 06:13 PM
*thanks the academy and all the little people*

Now THAT'S the spirit! :smallsmile:

Adslahnit
2009-11-08, 06:40 PM
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.

Logalmier
2009-11-08, 06:47 PM
Meh, in 3.5 I sorta got the idea that WotC gave suboptimal wizard advice to try and make the wizard less powerful then it is. Of course, they gave suboptimal advice for everything, so I guess that renders my idea moot.

Kurald Galain
2009-11-08, 06:58 PM
I didn't expect the inquisition.

Nobody expects the Inquisition!