The Essentials articles are atrocious.

[Majoru Oakheart]

I admit, I looked at these articles and thought some of the same things as the OP, although nowhere near as passionately.

Their recommendations create a character who is a lot less optimized than the average in our home group or our group of Living Forgotten Realms players.

Their recommendations don't create BAD characters...but they will be significantly less powerful than the rest of our group if they were to join us. And we try to avoid huge optimization.

Most of the time when I read the "Class Guides" on the Char Op boards my thoughts are always the same "Some of the stuff in here is due to dubious and purposefully bad reading of the rules, ignores a bunch of perfectly valid options in exchange for the two most popular ones on the Char Op boards at the time." In fact, a couple of them I read basically said that there were only two options that were suitably optimized. Both of the options listed used rules that no DM I know would allow in a game. Essentially, they were completely useless to me as a player because they relied on a section of the book that could be interpreted one of two ways...one completely reasonable and the other stupid broken. And everyone on the Char Op boards agrees that given no official ruling, the completely broken one must be correct.

Although, I admit that putting a prime stat of less than 16 is a really bad idea for the most part. And the articles in question recommend less than that on a regular basis.

 

[AngryMojo]

Sure strike is one of those powers that actually is useful, but not to people who just want to maximize their character's damage output. There's a reason why it's recommended for a sword and board fighter. Once you get to paragon, a sword and board fighter with Heavy Blade Opportunity can use sure strike as his opportunity attack. As a sword and board fighter, you're not caring that much about damage on the opportunity attack, just hitting so you can stop the monster's movement. Between a decent to high strength, the higher proficiency bonus from a longsword, adding your wisdom bonus to opportunity attacks, fighter weapon talent, heavy blade opportunity, combat reflexes and sure strike, you've just turned a good chance to stop an enemy's movement with an opportunity attack to a nearly guaranteed chance to stop an enemy's movement. That's what a sword and board fighter does, and that's why they do it well.

 

[Turtlejay]

I didn't want to jump in here, because of the vitriol, but I have to say that I am entertained by the articles, even if I don't have any illusions about their charop usefulness.

Charop seems to think that their mathematically tested, rules questionable way, is the only good way. I don't think it is healthy to assume that. I like the Essentials articles, since I don't think I or most folks assume they are there to help you break the game. They are there to help you understand the class. Suboptimal does not mean broken, and optimal does not guide the one true way of d & d.

Jay

 

[UngeheuerLich]

the less stength you have, the better sure strike becomes... but i wouldn´t use 15 strength...

i personally would go 16/13/14/8/14/10 take cleave and tide of iron and increase strength and wisdom for a while and maybe dex instead of wisdom later on, but starting with 15 strength and higher constitution is not so bad either... especially in a large group with many strikers, where you are not responsable for damage.

If you are a dwarf, using a big one handed axe and sure strike makes a respectable damage output, and every point of wisdom gives a great benefit. Multiclass as cleric and go for warpriest, and see how effective your axe and board fighter with sure strike suddenly becomes.

edit: sure strike is of course much better than careful strike, because it is usable without an off hand weapon and it has not to compare with twin strike on a damage dealer... these two powers are total different things (and i bet there would have been no debate at all, if there was no careful attack at all)

 

[The Little Raven]

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.

 

[Dice4Hire]

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.

WOW! That was exceptionally well said. Have an xp.

 

[Dire Bare]

Have to agree with OP, is that information useful for people?

Since WotC isn't in the business of publishing a long series of articles on topics no one feels useful, I'd say yes.

More importantly, since several posters in this thread have already stated they found the articles useful and/or entertaining, then I'd say yes again!

If there are some who don't find the articles useful, I would say "that's great" and also "who cares". Not every article is going to appeal to every gamer, and that doesn't make them useless or atrocious.

 

[Nifft]

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.

Hey. I resemble that remark.

Since WotC isn't in the business of publishing a long series of articles on topics no one feels useful, I'd say yes.

WotC intends it to be useful, therefore it must be useful?

Hmmmm, -- N

 

[fuzzlewump]

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.

http://community.wizards.com/charop/wiki/Fighter/handbook

I don't know about any other part, because I don't look at any other part, but CharOp puts out some great handbooks. I don't see how they are broken or irrelevant.

 

[Shroomy]

IMO, they're hardly atrocious, though admittedly, I generally skim the first sections of these articles and then go right to the new crunch. I also don't mind optimization or CharOps boards (in fact, I think the theorycraft and mathematics can be quite interesting). What I do hate is the attitude that if you deviate even a little bit from the mathematically optimal choice, you're doing it wrong. That quickly becomes tiresome, and unfortunately it just reinforces the worst optimizer stereotypes, which in turn, causes people to dismiss valid mathematical arguments.