The Essentials articles are atrocious.

[Garthanos]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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