Frankly I think this article is a waste of space. There's little to no fluff so those that like fluff are dissatisfied. No new crunch is offered, and so people who like crunch are equally dissatisfied.
Personally, this reads as 11 pages of advertisement for Primal Power and such should offered for free outside of Dragon magazine.
Fortunately for WotC I don't subscribe to DDi for the magazines. Unfortunately for me, this article leaves a stale taste in my mouth and I am only sure I've got more useless crap like this to look forward to in the future.
Character Concepts my ass. This isn't a character. This is a walking block of stats, with a few sentences here and there to try to justify the mechanical choices that were made. This might satisfy powergamers and other twinks, but based on the characters WotC has designed for WWGDs, I doubt its anywhere near optimal and so twinks are also left dissatisfied.
Ya know, I rather enjoyed reading it. It definitely serves it's purpose: The "Oh crap you want to start a new game NOW?!" thing. Even if it's not optimal, it's at least a cut above the average, and serves to give more ideas while reading it. Sure, you could take that feat and that power, but if you need a bit more of a damage output, or you can't seem to ever roll above a ten for something (usually my problem), then you'll obviously take a different path, using mostly the structure of the article but modifying certain things here and there.
"Character Concepts" has never been used to introduce new "crunch", and too much fluff would kill it, as no new ideas could come of it. As to what it's designed to do, introduce a "concept" (read: build) it does to a tee. I think you may have been a bit too quick to judge it.
My only...whats the word...concern/tiff/irk is that it's ENTIRELY primal based, and uses material for a book thats not even out yet. I think that this article would have been a bit better placed after Primal Power came out, or right after, actually. Even right before would be cool, as both an advertisement and idea jump-starter. But, you can't get everything.
EDIT: Oh...it IS right before the release...Struck out the irrelevant info, as it was useless and...irrelevant.
Odd note: when discussing which class the sample shaman character should choose (p. 71), the author debates between going with a shaman or an... alchemist??
I'm guessing that what he meant was "artificer," since devas do indeed make good artificers, and he goes on to describe "their ability to keep the party going after one character runs out of healing surges," which sounds like the artificer healing infusion. For a split second, though, I thought he'd accidentally tipped WotC's hand about one of the new classes in the PHB III 
Nothing really interesting in these builds, standard Warden MC Fighter build, and a pretty standard Shaman build *shrug*. At least the Shaman picked a lot of stuff from Primal Power, unlike the Warden who is basically a Fighter in Primal clothes.
If the goal of the article is to highlight great new options from the new book, the Warden fails.
If the goal is to provide some guidance on character building around a basic theme the article is at least good.
If the goal is to introduce two "characters" then more time on the "character" and less on the "mechanics" would be good. The mechanics being presented as a CB summary at level 30 would be far more useful and a lot shorter, thus allow more space for the character part.
Odd note: when discussing which class the sample shaman character should choose (p. 71), the author debates between going with a shaman or an... alchemist??
I'm guessing that what he meant was "artificer," since devas do indeed make good artificers, and he goes on to describe "their ability to keep the party going after one character runs out of healing surges," which sounds like the artificer healing infusion. For a split second, though, I thought he'd accidentally tipped WotC's hand about one of the new classes in the PHB III
I did a double take on that too. I didn't have my books open (and my computer takes three days to do anything useful) so I figured it was an artificer build after staring at the screen for a couple minutes, rather than a new class. Odd, though. Must've been thinking of a different game.
Frankly I think this article is a waste of space. There's little to no fluff so those that like fluff are dissatisfied. No new crunch is offered, and so people who like crunch are equally dissatisfied.
Personally, this reads as 11 pages of advertisement for Primal Power and such should offered for free outside of Dragon magazine.
Fortunately for WotC I don't subscribe to DDi for the magazines. Unfortunately for me, this article leaves a stale taste in my mouth and I am only sure I've got more useless crap like this to look forward to in the future.
Character Concepts my ass. This isn't a character. This is a walking block of stats, with a few sentences here and there to try to justify the mechanical choices that were made. This might satisfy powergamers and other twinks, but based on the characters WotC has designed for WWGDs, I doubt its anywhere near optimal and so twinks are also left dissatisfied.
Of all the articles and features in Dragon, the Character Concepts articles are probably the absolutely most useless ones to me, personally. And saying that, I think your description of the article is wrong on every possible count.
The goal of these articles is to show how feats, powers, and items can be chosen to emphasize a character concept - such as a primal character who wants to embody the 'earthquake' by constantly knocking around her foes and slamming them to the ground. These articles aren't remotely designed for powergamers. In fact, these articles have typically received a lot of criticism from optimisers as involving characters that aren't optimally designed.
Instead, they are focused on designing a character around a theme. Showing players how to build such character, and how such characters can develop from levels 1-30. I think that is a worthwhile concept for an article. I don't get any use out of it myself, and I'm glad to only see it show up a couple times a year... but your view of it seems completely disconnected from the actual article itself.
If they do one of these a year, I'm ok with it. I had no interest in reading the whole thing. Skimming through, I saw the mention of the "alchemist" class and chuckled realizing whoever edited it was probably too bored to read through the whole thing as well.
Instead, they are focused on designing a character around a theme. Showing players how to build such character, and how such characters can develop from levels 1-30. I think that is a worthwhile concept for an article.
I disagree. If you can't make a character around the concept of an earthquake perhaps a Dummies Guide to D&D would be helpful for you.
But how much of the article is really based on creating that concept?
First of all, we see no mention of an Earth Genasi. Apparently Warforged with their +2 Strength and +2 Con are much more thematically correct for an Earthquake based character then an Earth Genasi. I'm sure the fact an Earth Genasi has +2 Int has nothing to do with the fact it isn't chosen. After all, being a creation of war is much more thematic then the Earthshock racial power.
The justifications for certain aspects of the character in trying to make them sound thematic also ring hollow.
Wardens have Font of Life, which helps make Kiel
feel like an earthquake since it helps her shake off
effects that a save can end.
Yeah. Nothing says earthquake like a save against poison. Because when i think of enduring something, I definitely think "you know, like a destructive earthquake."
Then with the At-Wills. Kiel chooses Thorn Strike. Because that's so thematic. Wait, no it isn't. Its a plant based power with an earthquake based character. The author doesn't even try to justify it this time. He just says "this works well with a class feature, so I choose it." And that, right there, is a big reason as to why this article fails. Surely Earth-Shield Strike works better thematically. Enemies around you have a difficult time hitting you because the ground beneath them rumbles. Or because the ground in your square is trembling with the aftershocks of an earthquake, making you more difficult to hit. Or what about Strength of Stone. Just as trying to attack an earthquake with a sword is very ineffective, so is hitting the avatar of an earthquake.
Hell, the author could have come up with a similar justification for thorn strike. But he shows his true colours in saying it has great synergy with a class feature. Because having good synergy is of course more important then a thematic character when the entire purpose of the build is to be a thematic build.
Then we come to the encounter power. Is Hungry Earth chosen, where you "bringing forth primal energy that causes the earth to batter your foes and churn beneath their feet"? Of course not. We instead get an animal based power.
but your view of it seems completely disconnected from the actual article itself.
My view is this. The following people find this article useless:
- Those who like fluff. There is almost no fluff.
- Those who like crunch. There is no new crunch.
- Those who like to optimise. I doubt very much this build is optimal.
- Those who want to build a character around a theme. See the above points as to why the first character is does not embody the theme of an earthquake. And those are only my points based on everything he does before Level 2. I didn't even bother looking beyond that when he failed to choose Hungry Earth with an Earthquake themed character. The power is essentially, an Earthquake!
My point is, this is a pretty useless article. While some people may find it useful, those will be so few and far between, that it should not take up part of Dragon magazine's quota. It also shouldn't be charged for at all. This is on the level of Viscious Venues. Except while Viscious Venues may be useful, I doubt this is.
I really don't understand this series of articles at all. First, they usually appear before the actual book comes out so it's just a list of powers and feats that no one has any idea what they mean and even after the books come out, you have to go look up each selection on an outside source. Secondly, they don't really provide any interesting reading or new rules. It's just pretty much some person saying "look how I made my characters." I feel like the optimization wiki is far more useful for someone looking for character building advice and a single article with fluff geared towards character concepts would cover that purpose much better. The entire premise behind this series seems to be you may build characters roughly around a concept; let's give you mutiple articles of overly detailed examples.
Yeah. Nothing says earthquake like a save against poison. Because when i think of enduring something, I definitely think "you know, like a destructive earthquake."
Well, earthquakes cause things to shake. So you shake off effects. I see where they were going with that. Weak, I admit, but I see it.
Heck, taking your suggestion I whipped this up in the CB. I didn't equip it or worry about what order to take feats but I think it fits the earthquake theme better. (There's two unspent feats also that could be used for weapon prof./expertise but since I wasn't looking ot make a full blown character I didn't bother figuring all that out)
====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&D Character Builder ======
level 10
Genasi, Warden
Guardian Might: Earthstrength
Elemental Manifestation: Earthsoul
Earthshock: Earthshock Strength
FINAL ABILITY SCORES
Str 20, Con 19, Dex 10, Int 13, Wis 10, Cha 8.
STARTING ABILITY SCORES
Str 16, Con 17, Dex 10, Int 11, Wis 10, Cha 8.
AC: 19 Fort: 22 Reflex: 16 Will: 16
HP: 104 Surges: 13 Surge Value: 26
TRAINED SKILLS
Nature +12, Perception +10, Athletics +15, Endurance +16
UNTRAINED SKILLS
Acrobatics +5, Arcana +6, Bluff +4, Diplomacy +4, Dungeoneering +5, Heal +5, History +6, Insight +5, Intimidate +4, Religion +6, Stealth +5, Streetwise +4, Thievery +5
FEATS
Level 1: Earthshock Master
Level 2: Toughness
Level 4: Versatile Resistance
Level 6: Crushing Earthstrength
POWERS
Warden at-will 1: Strength of Stone
Warden at-will 1: Earth Shield Strike
Warden encounter 1: Earth Spikes
Warden daily 1: Form of the Willow Sentinel
Warden utility 2: Mountain Lion Step
Warden encounter 3: Earthgrasp Strike
Warden daily 5: Storm Strike
Warden utility 6: Earthguard
Warden encounter 7: Mountain Hammer
Warden daily 9: Form of the Stone Sentinel
Warden utility 10: Earthstride
Granted, there's lots of "earth" powers in the At-Will/Encounters then in Dailies there seems to be a distinct lack of earthy goodness (but lots of cold...).
Yeah, i've always skimmed over these articles. I have more fun trying it myself in the CB, thann reading about someone's character that neither is optimised in a unique way, or really match its concept well.
Those who want to build a character around a theme. See the above points as to why the first character is does not embody the theme of an earthquake. And those are only my points based on everything he does before Level 2. I didn't even bother looking beyond that when he failed to choose Hungry Earth with an Earthquake themed character. The power is essentially, an Earthquake!
Ok, it sounds like your objection is less to the concept of these articles in general, and more that you feel that this author specifically failed in the design of the character here. I can understand that. I don't agree entirely - but I can see where you are coming from, and certainly acknowledge your disappointment in the article!
My point is, this is a pretty useless article. While some people may find it useful, those will be so few and far between, that it should not take up part of Dragon magazine's quota. It also shouldn't be charged for at all. This is on the level of Viscious Venues. Except while Viscious Venues may be useful, I doubt this is.
Man, if the Vicious Venues really were Viscous, I'd probably find them a lot more useful than a do now - always room in a game for more fun with oozes, after all!
Ok, it sounds like your objection is less to the concept of these articles in general, and more that you feel that this author specifically failed in the design of the character here.
This is the first one I've bothered to read. So this one gets my criticisms whereas the others get a pass. The quality of this article certainly doesn't provide me with incentive to check the earlier ones.
... If you can't make a character around the concept of an earthquake perhaps a Dummies Guide to D&D would be helpful for you....
I reccomend the Dummies guide to Dming D&D 4e for everyone wanting to Dm. I've been Dming for years, have a loyal group of gamers for the last 6 years and still find great advice in that book.Great Advice for everyone even YOU. (points finger)