Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Slayer_5 10-29-04, 09:50 AM	Character class has got to be the most useless article ive ever seen. When I saw Character class Fighter, I got pretty excited. i though, "Sweet, WotC has been listening to us, and has made the fighter not suck!". instead, I got told things that I deduced the first time i saw the Fighter class chart. Their biggest strength is their full base attack and lots of feats? Ya don't say! Their lack of skillpoints is a drawback? I never knew! That tactics part is ridiculous as well. Who could have figured out, that its a good idea for the main meat shield to be close to a cleric. The Rogue one is equally rediculous. I didn't know it required saying that sneak attack is a good thing. Or that rogues are not front line combatants. This is just ******* me off, that sweet (Re: USEFULL) articles like Map a week and minds eye are getting shelved, for crap like this, all the mini stuff, (the minis have their own site) and the ebberon stuff. (not everyone plays ebberon) BAH!
Zelphi 10-29-04, 10:01 AM	But not as dumb as someone who criticises an article that's only had 2 issues to work in? Considering some people still think the Rogue can function as a Fighter because they have sneak attack, its not that bad for starting advice. Considering that some people will rush into melee and try to end things (because they only ever hit things with a greatsword) inreguardless of the parties tactics and actual need of the character - its still something some people need to hear. Given that it has only run for 2 issues, the rest of the articles on other classes have been fine and some people actually liked the thane, then giving it a chance would be the wiser course of action. Did you figure out all that for yourself or did someone explain in detail why it was of use or why it was fine?
BlackFiend 10-29-04, 11:18 AM	Wait...map a week is getting canned? WTH! ::Starts hoarding maps
Crazy Runner Guy 10-29-04, 11:25 AM	For a more experienced gamer, "Characters wtih Class" appears useless, and it may be just that. Useless. However, for a new player who is just getting into the game, it could a helpful introduction to a new character class, or give that person just enough inspiration and ideas to start a character of that class by giving pros and cons right from the start. However, NO article can teach you how to ROLEplay (or ROLLplay for that matter) a character with class. That comes from your campaign and your personal style. Give it a break. crg
beaver1024 10-29-04, 12:24 PM	A cursory examination of the character optimisation board will provide more useful information than the articles will. The article does not even touch some of the heavy issues of being a fighter despite not even providing any crunchy material at all. Whilst I don't feel as strongly about it as the thread starter I do wonder what is the intended effect/audience of those articles.
malykoth 10-29-04, 12:42 PM	I understand that newer players may need a few pointers now and then...but I have to agree with the thread. I found these articles (for the most part) beyond useless. No problem, though...I just give them a quick glance, confirm their total lack of use to me, and move on. It's not like it's costing me any money or anything like that. Far more annoying to me are some of the recent "Class Act" articles in Dragon. Not the ones with crunchy bits, mind you, but seems like half of them are full of useless tidbits like "Hey! Barbarians don't have to be from the wilderness!" or "Hey! You're paladin can be from a non-feudal culture!" or "Hey! There are a lot of different instruments that bards can play!"...thanks, I never would have come up with that myself :rolleyes: ...and I AM spending money on these! :rant:
Stuntman 10-29-04, 12:55 PM	Before I criticise the article any further, I would like to first hear from beginners whether or not they feel these articles are of any use. My first reaction is that I do not find it useful. My second reaction is that this article is likely not targetted at more experienced players. I'm waiting for the ranger article. I've heard many stories and seen first hand a player using a ranger as if he were a front line tank and failed miserably and then complain about how the ranger sucks.
Slayer_5 10-29-04, 10:07 PM	Ok, but what about the trade-off of Character class, D&D minis, and Eberron/Faerun stuff, and tossing out Map a week, minds eye, and monster mayhem? D&D minis has its OWN site. Why the hell is mini crap on the regular D&D site? And I think that the character class could have been sweet. If the fighter article had some cool combos, or the Rogue one addressed the ranged vs twf vs spring attack, it would be sweet. But Saying that one of the Pros of a Rogue is a good reflex save, then saying its cons are a poor will and fortitude, is redundant, if not silly. I would like to hear more about this. lets keep it going!
edsonaoki 10-29-04, 11:31 PM	Well, Mind's eye and Monster Mayhem require a constant influx of creativity, and it's likely that WoTC will bother to publish universally so many stuff that it could be selling... Hmm, certainly Character Class could be better, but if it's intended for novice players, it seems fine. More importantly, Character Class contains valuable tips about one important thing: teamworking. Just give a look at the Optimization Boards, and you will see that players are more concerned with creating PCs capable of winning a 1x1 duel, or "doing cooler things than everyone else", then one capable of contributing effectively to the party. You see players trying to create their superb cool "archer builds", no matter how pointless is the only one who can withstand damage in the party being on the rear line, while the enemy barbarians and ogres advance and massacrate the party's cleric, rogue and wizard. Sometimes, saying "the fighter must be on the frontline", is not "useless" as it seems.
Mitchell 10-29-04, 11:37 PM	I can only guess, but I doubt the article is meant for any but the most inexperienced of gamers. Even if you are new to DnD, most of the stuff is pretty elementary, at least so far. As far as shelving articles for new ones, eh... I don't play with the minis, or at least with the minis rules, but that's okay, some people do, so throw them a bone. Some of the articles may be missed a bit more, but I can cope. In time, the circle will return to it's starting point and some of these may return as well. Minds eye isn't a big deal, but an interview with the designers of book X could be posted as a one-shot and you still get a feel for where they are coming from. Map a week was certainly useful, but was it being used? I'm sure that they can track hits, and if no one is looking at something, why keep it around? I'm as guilty as anyone here, as I don't look at alot of the front page stuff, at least not regularly. Some of the rules stuff and the odd article that catches my eye, but otherwise, I don't really care about designer notes and don't need DM aids.
Phrennzy 10-29-04, 11:42 PM	One more reason I dumped my Dragon subscription. I'm keeping Dungeon though - premade adventures are great!
BlaineTog 10-30-04, 01:00 AM	Well, Mind's eye and Monster Mayhem require a constant influx of creativity, and it's likely that WoTC will bother to publish universally so many stuff that it could be selling...That seems to be one of the problems. Fluff is cheap. Crunch can be marketed. Just give a look at the Optimization Boards, and you will see that players are more concerned with creating PCs capable of winning a 1x1 duel, or "doing cooler things than everyone else", then one capable of contributing effectively to the party.This is a *bit* short sighted. The Character Optimization Board is there for a vary specific reason. It is not at all indicative of the majority of the D&D community. Whats more, the vast majority of the truly crazy buils are thought expiriments anyway. And finally, D&D parties are niched, and being good at your niche is a good thing for the party (just as long as you don't steal the spotlight). You see players trying to create their superb cool "archer builds", no matter how pointless is the only one who can withstand damage in the party being on the rear line, while the enemy barbarians and ogres advance and massacrate the party's cleric, rogue and wizard. Sometimes, saying "the fighter must be on the frontline", is not "useless" as it seems.So it's wrong to play an archer? Playing an archer is antithetical to party play?
Jell_Moo 10-30-04, 01:07 AM	They dumped Mind's Eye, practically the only source of "official" psionics supplements, for this??? I realize that this is material they could potentially sell, but they aren't! They aren't releasing any psionics supplements, so this was all we had. The series had potential, I can think of a hundred ways to make it cool. But no, they have to use it to state the bloody obvious. "One of the weaknesses of the Rogue is their lower hit dice". Well frickin' d'uh! Players, old and new alike are simply not going to get anything out of this. Anybody who spends a night reading the PHB will know everything they've put up there. Unless WotC dramatically changes the taste of the articles, all they have is filler, a total waste of space. At the very least give the Fighter some cool feat combos that a new player wouldn't immediately see (spiked chain, improved trip, combat reflexes) or show ways for a Rogue to get those sneak attacks in (flanking, invisible, what have you)... Give players good examples of Druid Wildshape options, show them what spells Sorcerers should and shouldn't pick at level ups, give them a hand with item creation... Whatever, but don't state the blatantly obvious.
Ph33r_the_Wheelchair 10-30-04, 02:11 AM	I agree wholeheartedly with Jell_Moo. I wouldn't necessarily mind an article that was geared for newer players, and there are plenty of ways "Class Acts" could be cool. But the way it is now it's more like it's for retarded players. Gee, I never would have guessed that bad saves and lower hit dice are bad! Wow! It's GOOD to have a high base attack bonus? How about that! Jell_Moo gave a good example of how a decent "Class Acts - Sorcerer" could include, but the way they've been going I'll expect them to say things like, "Sorcerers cast spells!" and, "One of the weakenesses of a sorcerer is their low hit die!" In fact, I'll give everyone a complete summary of all Class Acts, so you don't have to read them: 1. Open the PHB. Look at the classes. 2. See the benefits of each class? Those are GOOD things. 3. See the weaknesses of each class? Those are BAD.
BlaineTog 10-30-04, 02:32 AM	Whatever, but don't state the blatantly obvious.The sad thing is that these articles don't even make sense unless you already know the terms involved. Why should someone who hasn't read through at least the first few chapters of the PHB know what BaB, Saves, or Sneak Attack are? The only type of person it's good for is the person who hasn't read the PHB but has read the glossary in back and knows what each class has for class features... which is no one...
beaver1024 10-30-04, 06:56 AM	The series had potential, I can think of a hundred ways to make it cool. Unless WotC dramatically changes the taste of the articles, all they have is filler, a total waste of space. At the very least give the Fighter some cool feat combos that a new player wouldn't immediately see (spiked chain, improved trip, combat reflexes) or show ways for a Rogue to get those sneak attacks in (flanking, invisible, what have you)... Give players good examples of Druid Wildshape options, show them what spells Sorcerers should and shouldn't pick at level ups, give them a hand with item creation... Whatever, but don't state the blatantly obvious. Agreed. When I first saw the fighter article, I thought this was the type of stuff that was going to be discussed. It doesn't really matter that they don't produce new material but looking at how to use existing new material wouldn't have been so bad either. The problem is that if they start discussing class/party optimisation options they inadvertantly reveal how badly designed some parts of the system are. With designer egos on the line, this might not be an area they want to encroach.
Aramil_silverwind 10-31-04, 01:27 AM	OK then, this is a thread whose purpose is about as pointful as the articles that they're about. But regardless of whether or not WotC is going to give a uh.. care.. about what we're complaining about here. But regardless, I'm going to put in my 2 cents 'cuz Slayer is my hippo. First of all, YES, those articles are freaking STUPID. They say whats already been said in the PHB and whats been reitterated by everyone on these boards, not to mention picked over with a fine-tooth comb by those on the CO boards. If they would put some stuff in there that could be used by at least noobs to the game, then it would be semi-useful and though I (or my players) wouldn't need it, we could at least admit that some people do. A good example of this would be to say in the Monk Character Class article that it is a hard class to play because of its MAD (Multiple Ability Dependancy) to Str, Dex, Con, and Wis. That was something that my party wasted 3 PCs to figure out. And yeah, the miniatures have thier own site. Just like Magic has its own site. Why the hell would WotC post news about the recent magic tournaments in some bit city on the DnD page? Because some people that play DnD care more about the color of thier underwear that about magic cards. So why should WotC post news about the next warband mini's set on the DnD page? Because frankly me and my friends care more about the color of out underwear than how powerful the next set of monsters that are already in the MM could possibly be. What you say? A red dragon is a powerful monster? HOLY CRAP. Cuz y'know I've never taken a look at the MM while being a DM, or as a player I've never been scared by tales of fighting Dragons. As for the other articles like Monster Mayhem and Map-a-Week - what are you talking about WotC would need creativity to continue those articles? More than a few of those monsters are only 2nd Ed. conversions (Steel Dragon being one of them) so they've already been laid out, waiting for a conversion. Map-a-Week? Get a 5 year old to draw something. Anything. There ya go, add some photoshop and you got a map. WotC has no excuse to be shorting us like this, I mean half the point of having a website is to have people be able to find use out of it. If all you're doing is restating whats already on the CO boards, AND easily read in the PHB, then whats the point. Anyone that told me with a strait face that they found those articles a use to them would be kicked out of my game without warning. Because they obviously would die within a couple of sessions (if that is the party went out of thier way to keep them alive)
Kingside_Bishop 10-31-04, 01:22 AM	While we're complaining about Wizard's lack of original and useful bulletins, as a bard lover I'd like to bring up the "Bardic Knowledge" one. That was just like these new class oriented ones, but much more drawn out and agonizing. Plus, it just reinforced the stereotypes about the bard (it basically said that in order to be effective, a bard had to be an archer) -- which is the same thing these new ones are doing (if you're a rogue, this is your weakness and this is your strength, stick to these or die). It undermines the whole concept of D&D and discourages original ideas. I would like to see a breakdown of multiclassing possibilities by each class, maybe with some feat and skill trees. I mean, if we're going to show some new players how the game is played, we should show them the maximum possibilities in a way that's easy to understand. I think Dungeon/Dragon did something similar to this with the barbarian, and I thought it was very cool. But, as mentioned above, that's good financial gold.
Tempus665 10-31-04, 01:39 AM	I also think Character Class is a useless article. Even for beginners. What's also pretty sad is the Elite Opponents article, which merely features monsters with different templates and has nothing original.
The Morninglord 10-31-04, 05:14 AM	Pointing out the strengths and weaknesses of a class won't neccessarily discourage original ideas. What it tells you is (among other things) that if fighters have low Will saves, you will have to put a higher score in Wis, take the Iron Will feat, or multiclass into a class with good will saves if you want to be better at resisting compulsions. If you make a bard/fighter multiclass it will matter less if you decide to take Skill Focus: knowledge (nature) as a feat over Weapon Focus (greatsword) because the fighter has so good bab. I agree it would be a good idea to have one of the class articles be about multiclassing (in general). I hope a discussion on spellcasters and multiclassing could help some people understand why a fighter/wizard should NOT be casting 9th level spells. Not all spells are level-dependent, others works very well even if they are not on full capacity. A fighter or rogue could benefit from Mirror Image or See Invisibility even if he can not cast Meteor Swarm.
RayOMan 10-31-04, 08:50 AM	I didn't renew my Dragon subscription this year either because of the new format. I don't care for the class acts either. However, I think the posters were referring to the website. One more reason I dumped my Dragon subscription. I'm keeping Dungeon though - premade adventures are great!
Sh0t 10-31-04, 09:01 AM	Too bad they don't explain why having a lot of fighter bonus feats is an advantage.
Adlar Hodge 10-31-04, 09:38 AM	I don't mind the new articles. They (WotC) are trying to bring more people into the world of DnD. What is so wrong about wanting to bring new people into DnD via the website? I -don't- like them taking down articles though...especially ones that are doing well and have a lot of fan base. Perhaps they could go in more detail with the next few articles of "Character Class" so it doesn't appear to be "cut-n-paste" like they are now. As far as Class Acts go, in Dragon, I like it. It doesn't do too much for me, but is a nice read. Not all players "know" each class inside and out, even those that have played for a few years. It's not like they can spew out chunks of information at the drop of a hat. I can appreciate the direction they are going with the new articles, but taking away previous (and popular) articles isn't very wise to the fan base that has gotten you (the business) in the position you are in now. As far as the CO boards...not everyone reads those. I know I don't, and I've been playing for 6 years. Teamwork should be an important part of future issues of Character Class. Perhaps even include Psionics and the Core classes from the Complete Books as well. -Scott
BlaineTog 10-31-04, 11:47 AM	Pointing out the strengths and weaknesses of a class won't neccessarily discourage original ideas. What it tells you is (among other things) that if fighters have low Will saves, you will have to put a higher score in Wis, take the Iron Will feat, or multiclass into a class with good will saves if you want to be better at resisting compulsions. If you make a bard/fighter multiclass it will matter less if you decide to take Skill Focus: knowledge (nature) as a feat over Weapon Focus (greatsword) because the fighter has so good bab.But you can get all this information by just reading the PHB, and if you're thinking about multiclassing already, you clearly have read it. I don't mind the new articles. They (WotC) are trying to bring more people into the world of DnD. What is so wrong about wanting to bring new people into DnD via the website?It's not -- but that's not what these articles do. They just restate sections of the PHB. The saddest thing is that they use D&D-specific terms, which means you won't even understand the *articles* unless you've already read the PHB. So in other words, it's telling you stuff that you can easily learn by reading the PHB, but it's done in such a way that you have to read the PHB in order to make heads or tails of it. Stupid, huh?
Aramil_silverwind 10-31-04, 03:33 PM	telling you stuff that you can easily learn by reading the PHB, but it's done in such a way that you have to read the PHB in order to make heads or tails of it. NICE job WotC :rolleyes: