The Essentials articles are atrocious.

[Umbran]

No, statistics is a perfect 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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

No, statistics is a perfect 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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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