The Essentials articles are atrocious.

[Obryn]

You know, I think I might agree with the OP, if his posting style weren't full of over-the-top aggressive one-true-wayism. Regardless, I agree with Cirno and Cadfan, mostly.

I will have to look at the guides, but the CharOp forums are nests of vipers and I'd rather not step foot in them. Posts like the OP have negatively tainted my view of anything CharOp-related.

My only issue is that, while I greatly enjoy guides like this for CRPGs with well-defined adventures and plots, RPGs that take place at a real table with real people and variable settings might never see the ideal situations which must be assumed for this sort of mathematical analysis. Plus, specific other table variations make a huge difference - some DMs walk past Defenders, for example, while others treat them as the Grasping Hand of God. These variations can make or break your choices, when you bring a character to the table. This doesn't make the math wrong in the least - it's just that I find the CharOp approach a bit myopic.

Math is math and stats are stats. I have no doubt the mathematical analyses are valid within the range of ideal situations assumed within them. I'm no stats skeptic - it's part of my job, after all.

I also can't stand posts like, "You picked THAT?! Why?!? It's mechanically inferior, and you will lose out on an average 0.38 points of damage per round!" Those get my goat.

-O

 

[AllisterH]

I also can't stand posts like, "You picked THAT?! Why?!? It's mechanically inferior, and you will lose out on an average 0.38 points of damage per round!" Those get my goat.

-O

This is the thing I would really love to see.

How much of a difference in an adventure/typical encounter are we talking here with BAD choices versus OPTIMAL choices?

(To use the notation of the Char-op guides).

For example, if I came up with the backstory of an eladrin paladin who was raised by dwarven priests of Clangeddin (A BALadin who wields a Greataxe), would we see much difference in say an actual adventure/encounter like Keep on the Shadowfell versus say a Dragonborn STRaladin who follows Bahamut?

 

[Nifft]

How much of a difference in an adventure/typical encounter are we talking here with BAD choices versus OPTIMAL choices?

Depends on the encounter, of course. If you're facing minions below your level, not much difference I'd bet. If you're facing Elite Soldiers above your level, having a mechanically well-built PC will let you live.

For example, if I came up with the backstory of an eladrin paladin who was raised by dwarven priests of Clangeddin (A BALadin who wields a Greataxe), would we see much difference in say an actual adventure/encounter like Keep on the Shadowfell versus say a Dragonborn STRaladin who follows Bahamut?

So basically, how would a poorly designed PC fare against Grimtooth?

(That's a bad adventure to choose if you want to illustrate how those two characters could be equally fun. Grimtooth will kill poorly designed PCs, and even many well designed PCs, but the latter have a much better chance of walking away.)

Keep on the Shadowfell made my group realizes how poor bad of the pregens were.

Cheers, -- N

 

[karlindel]

I personally enjoy the Essentials articles overall. The fluff can be fun to read, and it's nice to see different takes on powers, as well as the new crunch that comes with the articles.

That said, there are definitely some issues with some of them. For example, the advice for the Inspiring Warlord to take Commander's Strike, but not the Tactical Warlord, is just silly given how weak the power is for the Inspiring Warlord and how amazing it is for a Tactical Warlord. I also think that a better stat allocation (i.e. at least 16 pre-racial in the main attack stat) is important advice for new players.

I also like the handbooks on the CharOps boards. I'm not a fan of all of the CharOps stuff, but the handbooks are generally full of good advice for new players as well as interesting ideas and alternatives for experienced players.

 

[Jhaelen]

I think the OPs avatar is atrocious. The articles? Not so much.

I'm also with Obryn: I don't visit the CO boards because I can't stand the attitude that - judging by the OPs example - is typical for that place.

 

[Jack99]

So basically, how would a poorly designed PC fare against Grimtooth?

(That's a bad adventure to choose if you want to illustrate how those two characters could be equally fun. Grimtooth will kill poorly designed PCs, and even many well designed PCs, but the latter have a much better chance of walking away.)

Keep on the Shadowfell made my group realizes how poor bad of the pregens were.

Cheers, -- N

Who is Grimtooth? Do you mean Irontooth or did I get more beers tonight than I seem to recall?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Who is Grimtooth? Do you mean Irontooth or did I get more beers tonight than I seem to recall?

you are correct...



here comes the fun part...make up multi sets of the same character...

lets say level 26... make 4 characters with the most optimized choices...then make characters with 1 diffrence each...

example: Fighter/pit fighter/ demi god with weapon expertise, weapon focus, epic def feat, toughnes, I know I am missing 'must have feats'

then the same character with 1 feat instead of expertise
then the same character (put expertise back) with a feat instad of the def feat
ect. ect. ect.

then start the encounter, BUT use the same dice roll for all 10 encounter running simo... see if any combo fails to win the challenge...

when you find the set of characters that are so bad off they can't win...then you can say THAT is the bad choice...

 

[Lord Byron]

I think the OPs avatar is atrocious. The articles? Not so much.

Hey.

Flandre is awesome.

What the heck? Insulting the guys avatar, kinda weird.


More seriously and on-topic, a while ago, I came to this conclusion: All things being equal, take the mechanically optimal choice. So, if you're choosing between sword X and sword Y, and sword Y deals .1 more damage per round, you take sword Y. The point being that even the smallest significant mathematical difference should be enough to sway you one direction or another. This is pretty much the basis of all optimization as far as I can tell.

And this has never really harmed my ability to create the character I want to make. Rather, things like the character handbooks, which make recommendations as to the optimal choices for a given class, form the baseline from which I can choose to deviate. I honestly view them as a way to separating the chaff from the wheat, when it comes to powers, feats, etc.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I came to this conclusion: All things being equal, take the mechanically optimal choice.

see that 'all things being equal' is the thing...

If:
power A does .98 DPR more then B and 1.32 more then C
power B does .34 DPR more then C
Power C is the weakest for DPR...

and all else is equal fine...BUT what if we add

power A in no way fits my concept, and I don't even like it
power B is alright but not really within what I want
Power C I think is fun, cool, and is the type of thing I want my character to do...

is 'all else equal' or not?
I would look and say 1.32 DPR is so small a diffrence that I will take power C... but maybe we are nto the same.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The whole point of minions is that you encounter them in packs, frequently hordes, sometimes swarms. (Yes, I've been playing Heroes of Might and Magic recently, why do you ask?) So choosing powers on the basis of what will help you against a single minion is... poor planning IMO, unless your DM takes a very unconventional approach to combat.

Anyway, that aside...

Í don´t believe, only because minions are expected to be encountered in groups, they have to be standing next to each other...

Still I am not debating the point, that sure strike is so unattractive, that it should not be picked usually.

I however do believe you take my comments out of context... so try read and comment to complete posts...