The Essentials articles are atrocious.

[EarthSeraphEdna]

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!"

Edit: 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/thr..._of_Faith_and_Facestabs_The_Paladins_Handbook
http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/20123797/The_True_Magus_A_Wizards_Handbook

 

[Ktulu]

huh... I've found them to be enjoyable, myself. I don't care much for optimizataion, but the feats and powers have been enjoyable, and they're fairly useful to give a new player to show him a baseline idea of what options are good.

As far as the art goes, I don't think they have to draw minmax powergameus for each and every depiction of a character. Not only that, it was drawn by Gabe of Penny-Arcade, who was presumably given a bit of freedom on his art choice.

 

[Klaus]

They're some of my favorite articles. Not only do they explain some of the basics of a class (without telling you how you must play), they offer crunch at the end to round out a build or two (like the high Dex/low Wis Tempest, or the low Dex/High Wis fighter).

Atrocity, like beauty, seems to be in the eye of the beholder.

 

[EarthSeraphEdna]

They're some of my favorite articles. Not only do they explain some of the basics of a class (without telling you how you must play)

That they do when it comes to the words part... mostly. (No, WotC, you do not recommend Sure Strike and suggest that it is "much-maligned" for no reason, and you do not act as though double weapons do not exist for a Tempest Technique fighter.) Then around come the numbers and you start to wonder about WotC's thought processes. Really, 15 Strength, 14 Constitution, 14 Dexterity, 8 Intelligence, 14 Wisdom, 10 Charisma for a sword and board fighter?

they offer crunch at the end to round out a build or two (like the high Dex/low Wis Tempest, or the low Dex/High Wis fighter).

As stated above, they already have a series for this: Class Acts. The "Essentials" spinoff, which includes shoddy character-building tips, is wholly superfluous.

 

[ki11erDM]

I don’t think you are the target audience; they are targeted at people who don’t have the time or knowledge to optimize* as effectively as you obviously do. Just because you are not the target audience does not make it un-useful to all D&D players.


*is optimize the new politically correct min/max?

 

[ki11erDM]

Really, 15 Strength, 14 Constitution, 14 Dexterity, 8 Intelligence, 14 Wisdom, 10 Charisma for a sword and board fighter?

Those are very very close to what my sword and board fighters starting stats are (who is the most enjoyable character I have ever played). So thanks for insulting my intelligence and my play style.

 

[EarthSeraphEdna]

I don’t think you are the target audience; they are targeted at people who don’t have the time or knowledge to optimize* as effectively as you obviously do. Just because you are not the target audience does not make it un-useful to all D&D players.

Is it really so hard to, say, explain that "Sure Strike is a poor power and should be very low on your priority list" or, even recommend a better starting array for a Tactical Presence warlord? 16 Strength, 12 Constitution, 10 Dexterity, 16 Intelligence, 8 Wisdom, 12 Charisma, hey, I just came up with one right now which is easier to grasp and is easier to figure out the point cost of than the 17 Strength, 13 Constitution, 10 Dexterity, 14 Intelligence, 8 Wisdom, 11 Charisma mishmash that they have in Warlord Essentials right now.

Better advice is no harder to grasp than poor guidance because, well, it is better advice.

 

[EarthSeraphEdna]

Those are very very close to what my sword and board fighters starting stats are (who is the most enjoyable character I have ever played). So thanks for insulting my intelligence and my play style.

16 Strength, 12 Constitution, 16 Dexterity, 10 Intelligence, 12 Wisdom, 8 Charisma. Superior attack bonus, greater damage bonus, better AC, higher Fortitude, more Reflex, faster speed (hide armor), and you need not have resorted to a roundabout ability score spread. A 16/16/12/12/10/8 ability score spread is more effective, more intuitive, and easier to conceive and double-check the validity of than a 15/14/14/14/10/8 array, so why recommend the latter to new players if they are building a new character anyway?

 

[Dire Bare]

The "Essential" series of articles aren't minmaxing guides to help you create the most devasting characters possible. They are introductory articles for relative newbies who need help understanding the "shtick" of a class and how to create a competent, if not minmaxed, character.

Besides, "atrocious"? Really? Why the melodrama? Can't you just say, "Hey, I disliked the article, someone please explain to me why you might have liked it?" And then to criticize those who did find the article useful and/or entertaining . . . it's just crass, really.

 

[fuzzlewump]

Those are very very close to what my sword and board fighters starting stats are (who is the most enjoyable character I have ever played). So thanks for insulting my intelligence and my play style.

Actually, OP is right. Those are poor stats from a character optimization point of view. I don't see anywhere where he is insulting anyone's intelligence. Why would an article telling you how to play your class give you poor stats to start with? It doesn't make much sense, and can certainly steer new players away from better paths.

I don’t think you are the target audience; they are targeted at people who don’t have the time or knowledge to optimize* as effectively as you obviously do. Just because you are not the target audience does not make it un-useful to all D&D players.

That's fine. But people who don't have the time or knowledge to optimize are getting poor advice from an optimization stand point from this article. People who don't "have the time" should instead be directed to CharOp forums, which take an equal amount of time to read and give better advice. See his point now?

That said, I still love the articles because of the new powers and feats.