The Essentials articles are atrocious.

[Cadfan]

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]

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...

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

 

[GMforPowergamers]

No, statistics is a perfect 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]

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]

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]

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]

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...

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]

"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]

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]

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.