BS. Handbooks always assume for a conservative DM. Cite some examples, please.
I recently told a DM that I was planning on becoming a Daggermaster as a Sorcerer in order to get the extra crit range on all my spells. That DM told me that there was no way he was allowing the extra crit range on spells because it was a Rogue Paragon Path that was obviously meant to make them better at striking vital areas due to using a small and fast weapon that was more accurate and that didn't apply to spells at all when a Dagger was used as an implement.
I pointed out that nothing in the rules says you get the crit range only when using the Dagger as a weapon. He told me that it didn't matter about the absolute letter of the rules, the intention behind it was just important and that the Paragon Path doesn't mention anything caster classes wanting this class or it being very good for them.
Now, this is pretty much an agreed upon use of the rules by everyone in the CharOp boards, and is recommended in most builds. In fact, increasing the crit range of your dagger/using Weapon Focus/Two Weapon Fighting/Dual Implements is one of the hallmarks of optimizing Sorcerers on the boards.
And until I saw the answer come back from WOTC that you could use Weapon Focus on implement attacks if the implement was also a weapon...I would never have considered allowing it. I would have told people they were crazy. I still think it was a bad idea for WOTC to have given that answer. It's the answer that opened up the floodgates of "If this feat that appeared to be meant only for weapons works on implements...what other rules that say 'weapon' can now mean implement?"
I still have DMs who are trying to keep things under control in their games by ignoring that answer and saying that anything that refers to weapons works only when used as a weapon and not when used as an implement in order to control this.
It sounds like the problem is that the class isn't well built, and is contrary to itself.
If you have to choose between being good against the class design, and being bad and in the class design, then the problem isn't with the handbook that points out the bloody flaws.
Why is that? I like my Avenger who plays within the class design just fine. In fact, he's one of my favorite characters. I was looking at the guide to figure out what Avenger powers someone else recommended that would be good for my character. I instead found a guide that said "Don't take this power, it is really bad" for almost every power I already had and all the ones I was thinking of taking.
It's this idea that has also gotten a bunch of my friends into a mindset to stop playing classes. Instead they play classes just for the class features and them promptly multiclass into another class for its best power.
This was one of the things that bothered me the most about 3.5e. No one played archetypes anymore, they simply robbed a class of its mechanical benefits in order to become more powerful. I was happy when I saw how poor a choice multiclassing was in 4e because I felt that would encourage people to stay one class and to have multiclassing be the rarity. Unfortunately, the ability to take Paragon Paths designed for other classes has brought back the "Everyone is multiclassed" trend from 3.5e.
Your attributing things to the handbooks that aren't there. More then that, you're attributing a purpose to the handbooks that aren't there.
The only purpose I think these guides should have is to tell you the best, most effective way to make the class do what the class does.
This one says "Since the Avenger is a striker, I'm going to put on the Striker lens when I evaluate paragon paths. If a path makes a decent leader, for example, I may point that out, but it's rating will suffer unless it also makes a decent striker."
Which is putting on too narrow a lens for an article on how best to play an Avenger, which is clearly not a "pure" striker in the same way that Ranger is.
I'd prefer an article that says "An Avenger is a Striker but can lean toward controller, leader, or defender. If a Paragon Path lets you do any of these secondary roles well, I will rate it highly based on how effectively it lets you fill that role, but point out WHAT it is effective at. If a Paragon Path simply does a worse job than any other method of fulfilling that role available to you, I will rate it poorly."
And when it comes down to it, a large portion of it is opinion based on how the author thinks the class should work. Which is nearly useless if I don't see the class working the same way.
The handbooks aren't there to tell you the fluff of the class. The handbooks aren't there to tell you how to roleplay the class. The handbooks aren't there to tell you how to create your character concept. The handbooks are there to look at the game logically and help you choose the best powers for your archtype.
In other words? The handbooks fit 4e to a T.
I disagree. The Avenger handbook never helps me build my archetype. The closest my Avenger comes to anything it considers acceptable is a "Martyr". However, I still want to avoid being hit whenever possible even though I put myself out there in dangerous situations and dare enemies to hit me so I can get extra damage. But the guide recommended against anything that would increase my AC, since I do more damage when enemies hit me.
I want a balance between "I do extra damage when people hit me" and "I don't want to die". But any power that would give me that balance is picked on by the guide as being contrary to what you want to build a Martyr and therefore not worth taking.
But I also want a character who is a religious fanatic who embodies his gods ideals and punishes his enemies using Holy Might. Which is why I picked Avenger as a class.
But the article never tells me how to best play that archetype. It tells me how to play the two archetypes that the author has decided are the only two valid archetypes for Avengers to have.
I disagree that any guide for 4e needs to entirely remove fluff or roleplaying from its calculation. Or that 4e is somehow designed for this type of guide.
