[4e] The Essentials articles are atrocious.

[Adslahnit]

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/...ghter/Handbook
http://community.wizards.com/charop/...arden/Handbook
http://community.wizards.com/charop/...arian/Handbook
http://community.wizards.com/go/thre...adins_Handbook
http://community.wizards.com/go/thre...zards_Handbook

[Dragonmuncher]

{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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Kurald Galain]

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

[Doc Roc]

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?

I always assumed that he literally couldn't read.

[Starbuck_II]

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]

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?

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]

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.

[Fishy]

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]

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.

[Jothki]

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]

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

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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".