Have you noticed that the many of the SubClass 101 feature articles do not actually give helpful advice on building to the strengths (narratively or mechanically) of classes? This seems to be a recurring pattern with the recent Warlock subclass articles, but probably dates back much earlier.
It seems strange to me that DDB doesn't pay people who are actually experts at playing certain classes to write the articles for those classes. Instead, they keep inviting the exact same person to write their subclass 101 articles, and frankly, some of the advice provided by Mr. Haeck is not good and shows a general pattern of disregard for the particular proficiencies and uniqueness of each subclass.
Considering how many hobbyists make YouTube channels and post on websites about kick-butt builds, it puzzles me that DDB has not, thus far, bothered to broaden their talent pool of writers in this regard.
I'm not sure of the exact business relationship between Beyond and Jamie Haeck, but it does seem to be that he is on some sort of continuing payroll as a writer. Investing time and money into cultivating a pool of writers is hard. They tried to add a comedy writer a while back, but got a lot of negative response. That's probably turned them off to looking for other writers at the moment.
Can you elaborate a little more on what the specific issues are that you're noticing in these articles? Bear in mind that these seem to be written for people thinking about playing one, who may know nothing about the class/archetype, so a very basic intro seems to be the goal.
It's a 101, which is often used for an introductory course at a beginner's level. It's not supposed to be an experts guide to class building if that's what you are thinking.
How is it considered even decent advice to recommend Beguiling Influence as an Eldrtich Invocation? Skills that someone can get from their race or background are completely wasted.
Also, Haeck recommends Pact of the Blade for almost every Warlock subclass when it's clear that Archfey and GOOlocks features emphasize stuff for getting OUT of the frontlines instead of tanking. The recommendations are so haphazard and sloppy.
I mean, it's not even a recommendation, he is talking about thinking about where you want to put your scores.
Once you’ve placed Charisma as your highest ability score, consider what else is important to you. If you want to forge a Pact of the Blade at 3rd level and fight with martial weapon, Strength might be the second most important ability for you. On the other hand, prioritizing Dexterity would make you harder to strike in general—and a terror with a rapier, if you follow the Pact of the Blade. Constitution will also help you take more blows in combat, and hang onto your precious concentration spells more easily (more on them later). Wisdom and Intelligence aren’t useless for you, but they’re far from a secondary or even a tertiary ability.
The reality is, newer people tend to gravitate towards melee combat, I've been playing D&D for years and most of the people I introduce to the game lean towards melee until they get an understanding of the game and figure out how they truly like to play. Some stick with melee, others don't.
Beguiling Influence. If your campaign has a lot of intrigue—or even if just the current arc of your campaign is roleplay-heavy—then this invocation will turn your unsettling words into creeping poison within the minds of those who hear them.
Again, this is solid advice for anyone who doesn't want to pick their background just for the skills it gives. People play different ways and there is nothing wrong with buffing your skills with an invocation.
Pact Boon
At 3rd level, you get to request a boon from your patron. This further defines the nature of your pact: do you wish to invoke the bloodstained Pact of the Blade? The shadowy and arcane Pact of the Tome? Or the manipulative Pact of the Chain? These pacts grant you a small bit of additional power immediately, and access to certain Eldritch Invocations later on.
Most who follow the Great Old One prefer the magical Pact of the Tome, which allows them to delve deeper into the arcane mysterious of cosmos.However, the Pact of the Chain’s powers of domination are far from useless to a warlock such as you, and even the bloody-minded followers of the Pact of the Blade, can use it to advance the Great Old One’s subtle ends.
The guy is giving advice that isn't actually recommendations at all, just helpful advice for a beginner to read and build from. Class 101 isn't supposed to be telling you how to optimally build a specific character, it's relative advice that beginners can take and build in any direction they like.
I mean, it's not even a recommendation, he is talking about thinking about where you want to put your scores.
Once you’ve placed Charisma as your highest ability score, consider what else is important to you. If you want to forge a Pact of the Blade at 3rd level and fight with martial weapon, Strength might be the second most important ability for you. On the other hand, prioritizing Dexterity would make you harder to strike in general—and a terror with a rapier, if you follow the Pact of the Blade. Constitution will also help you take more blows in combat, and hang onto your precious concentration spells more easily (more on them later). Wisdom and Intelligence aren’t useless for you, but they’re far from a secondary or even a tertiary ability.
The reality is, newer people tend to gravitate towards melee combat, I've been playing D&D for years and most of the people I introduce to the game lean towards melee until they get an understanding of the game and figure out how they truly like to play. Some stick with melee, others don't.
Beguiling Influence. If your campaign has a lot of intrigue—or even if just the current arc of your campaign is roleplay-heavy—then this invocation will turn your unsettling words into creeping poison within the minds of those who hear them.
Again, this is solid advice for anyone who doesn't want to pick their background just for the skills it gives. People play different ways and there is nothing wrong with buffing your skills with an invocation.
Pact Boon
At 3rd level, you get to request a boon from your patron. This further defines the nature of your pact: do you wish to invoke the bloodstained Pact of the Blade? The shadowy and arcane Pact of the Tome? Or the manipulative Pact of the Chain? These pacts grant you a small bit of additional power immediately, and access to certain Eldritch Invocations later on.
Most who follow the Great Old One prefer the magical Pact of the Tome, which allows them to delve deeper into the arcane mysterious of cosmos.However, the Pact ofthe Chain’s powers of domination are far from useless to a warlock such as you, and even the bloody-minded followers of the Pact of the Blade, can use it to advance the Great Old One’s subtle ends.
The guy is giving advice that isn't actually recommendations at all, just helpful advice for a beginner to read and build from. Class 101 isn't supposed to be telling you how to optimally build a specific character, it's relative advice that beginners can take and build in any direction they like.
I completely agree with you. These articles are supposed to help new players, not help experts choose the most mechanically sound options. Personally, I enjoy all of Haeck's articles, especially the Encounter of the Week ones.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
All stars fade. Some stars forever fall. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Homebrew (Mostly Outdated):Magic Items,Monsters,Spells,Subclasses ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If there was no light, people wouldn't fear the dark.
Haeck's articles aren't "This is The Way" so much as "let's wrap our minds around these features." The 101 series are orientations, not masterclasses, so to speak; and as such, they do the work.
Personally, I don't go to DDB for the articles. And while I'm mostly here for the tools and fun on the forum, I'm aware that DDB is often an entry point to the game. As such, I'm glad DDB does spend some resources providing 101 level content, as we well as the encounters (which are generally geared to entry level style play). I myself will sometimes send a newish player to a 101 when they're thinking about a character. Is there more sophisticated commentary out there beyond D&D Beyond? Sure. Channel surfing should always be encouraged. But I think DDB and Haeck do laudable on ramp work in this space.
There's something I don't like about a thread calling out a single author's work (and work I see more as the author "doing their job" as others have identified). It's doubly vexing because all the 101 Write Ups have space to engage the author or put up "better" or "more advanced ideas". I mean I have nothing against substantial criticism, I do it myself quite a bit. I think it would be more constructive for a thread to be something more like "support for more advanced players on DDB" ... but that's basically this forum, which I'm glad DDB supports.
I like that 101 articles are not super focused on combat, as there is so much more to D&D than combat. Optimizing characters for combat can come later.
If the adventure is very light on combat encounters and very heavy on social and environmental encounters, then combat builds are not going to do so well. If the adventure is focused on trade and political intrigue, most combat builds are not going to be all that useful.
Scientific exploration, exposing bribery and corruption, helping settlers to establish a new settlement, etc. are adventures that might not require much combat at all.
An elite force of commandos filled with adventurers seems to be a dime a dozen. On the other hand, an adventuring monk with savvy communication and negotiation skills would be critical for successfully establishing diplomatic relations with a new nation. An interdimensional travelling sorcerer could provide valuable services in trading goods between worlds. A rogue with expertise in Perception, Investigation, and Insight could be a great inspector or undercover journalist.
Just want to thank JH and all the others that work on this platform. It was one of the first places I found when I returned to DND and has been a great resource and intro to the community.
Combat-focused or not isn't the issue. The question is why not have some writers who are actually familiar with the class write articles pertaining to the class. I'm not saying that articles need to be about high DPR or "how to max your CHA," but they should provide genuinely helpful build advice that isn't just a hodge podge copy-and-paste just from a previous article from another subclass.
It's also frustrating that, clearly, DDB isn't hiring copy editors to go over class build articles for accuracy. If a writer writes factually incorrect information, that does reflect negatively on the website that commissioned the piece of writing.
I like James articles, this post however I find rude and obnoxious by someone who doesn't understand how the real world works. You think James is getting rich and has a long time to put articles together? Dream on and as someone else mentioned, calling out authors, critiquing individuals work here on their companies website with a very subjective opinion, is quite disgusting.
I've found some of his articles to be both compelling to read AND useful. I even recommended one to my newish DM a short while ago.
In regards to your remark about expertise in the field of essentially powerbuilding a class, you can just look it up online across multiple forums and 5e doesn't have a huge spectrum to powerbuild with. You're just looking up the same thing over and over again with a different format. It's not that hard to find stuff to build with. Hell, you can even jump down in to the subforums with all the different classes and ASK people on here what they have made and I'm sure more than a few of them will have come up with something!
I might recommend reading DMG Chapter 1: Play Style and judging what you think James is going for. I see as him leaning towards "immersive storytelling" rather than hack 'n' slash but doesn't skip the sidelines and does mention useful feats to take if you are expecting some combat.
Combat-focused or not isn't the issue. The question is why not have some writers who are actually familiar with the class write articles pertaining to the class. I'm not saying that articles need to be about high DPR or "how to max your CHA," but they should provide genuinely helpful build advice that isn't just a hodge podge copy-and-paste just from a previous article from another subclass.
It's also frustrating that, clearly, DDB isn't hiring copy editors to go over class build articles for accuracy. If a writer writes factually incorrect information, that does reflect negatively on the website that commissioned the piece of writing.
I'm curious, when was the last time you saw a "factually incorrect" 101, and you yourself engaged in that 101's commentary and feedback? That would be constructive criticism and participation within an online community. The "take down" you're providing here hasn't gained a single endorsee in almost a month. On the contrary, the comments on this thread are a mix of 1.) asks for greater clarity since they don't recognize your concern as a true problem or 2.) efforts to encourage you to recognize that the 101s provide have value, maybe not to you, but to the audience for which they're intended (those in need of 101 tutorials or introductions).
There's a lot of reasons why a publication, or a toolset and digital adapter who includes introductory guidance and creative inspiration as a free value added to the site, may opt to employ a staff writer than some stable of freelance experts. Consistent product and the ability to stick to a schedule established by the publishers is one, a capacity to nimbly adapt to changes in internal timelines and priorities is another. FWIW "copy editors" don't do what you suggest they do, so I'd suggest looking more into how editorial processes actually work in various scaled outlets prior to making pretty bold claims about content's impact on an outlets reputation.
As pointed out a few times already, if you want "expert" level thought exchange, that's what these forums are for. DDB is trying to grow the hobby as an entry point "and beyond". The forward facing content is of course going to be introductory. The "beyond" comes in the crunch within these forums.
If you disagree with "the facts" of some D&D content, there is plenty of space to contend with those errors in the comments under said content. Again, that's a productive tactic.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Combat-focused or not isn't the issue. The question is why not have some writers who are actually familiar with the class write articles pertaining to the class. I'm not saying that articles need to be about high DPR or "how to max your CHA," but they should provide genuinely helpful build advice that isn't just a hodge podge copy-and-paste just from a previous article from another subclass.
It's also frustrating that, clearly, DDB isn't hiring copy editors to go over class build articles for accuracy. If a writer writes factually incorrect information, that does reflect negatively on the website that commissioned the piece of writing.
I'm curious, when was the last time you saw a "factually incorrect" 101, and you yourself engaged in that 101's commentary and feedback? That would be constructive criticism and participation within an online community. The "take down" you're providing here hasn't gained a single endorsee in almost a month. On the contrary, the comments on this thread are a mix of 1.) asks for greater clarity since they don't recognize your concern as a true problem or 2.) efforts to encourage you to recognize that the 101s provide have value, maybe not to you, but to the audience for which they're intended (those in need of 101 tutorials or introductions).
There's a lot of reasons why a publication, or a toolset and digital adapter who includes introductory guidance and creative inspiration as a free value added to the site, may opt to employ a staff writer than some stable of freelance experts. Consistent product and the ability to stick to a schedule established by the publishers is one, a capacity to nimbly adapt to changes in internal timelines and priorities is another. FWIW "copy editors" don't do what you suggest they do, so I'd suggest looking more into how editorial processes actually work in various scaled outlets prior to making pretty bold claims about content's impact on an outlets reputation.
As pointed out a few times already, if you want "expert" level thought exchange, that's what these forums are for. DDB is trying to grow the hobby as an entry point "and beyond". The forward facing content is of course going to be introductory. The "beyond" comes in the crunch within these forums.
If you disagree with "the facts" of some D&D content, there is plenty of space to contend with those errors in the comments under said content. Again, that's a productive tactic.
I do, in fact, comment on articles. And I see the same sorts of errors being repeated over and over again by the same writer. That tells me there is a pattern where either the writer is not bothering to fact-check his own work, or DDB is not bothering to cross check his claims.
Combat-focused or not isn't the issue. The question is why not have some writers who are actually familiar with the class write articles pertaining to the class. I'm not saying that articles need to be about high DPR or "how to max your CHA," but they should provide genuinely helpful build advice that isn't just a hodge podge copy-and-paste just from a previous article from another subclass.
It's also frustrating that, clearly, DDB isn't hiring copy editors to go over class build articles for accuracy. If a writer writes factually incorrect information, that does reflect negatively on the website that commissioned the piece of writing.
I'm curious, when was the last time you saw a "factually incorrect" 101, and you yourself engaged in that 101's commentary and feedback? That would be constructive criticism and participation within an online community. The "take down" you're providing here hasn't gained a single endorsee in almost a month. On the contrary, the comments on this thread are a mix of 1.) asks for greater clarity since they don't recognize your concern as a true problem or 2.) efforts to encourage you to recognize that the 101s provide have value, maybe not to you, but to the audience for which they're intended (those in need of 101 tutorials or introductions).
There's a lot of reasons why a publication, or a toolset and digital adapter who includes introductory guidance and creative inspiration as a free value added to the site, may opt to employ a staff writer than some stable of freelance experts. Consistent product and the ability to stick to a schedule established by the publishers is one, a capacity to nimbly adapt to changes in internal timelines and priorities is another. FWIW "copy editors" don't do what you suggest they do, so I'd suggest looking more into how editorial processes actually work in various scaled outlets prior to making pretty bold claims about content's impact on an outlets reputation.
As pointed out a few times already, if you want "expert" level thought exchange, that's what these forums are for. DDB is trying to grow the hobby as an entry point "and beyond". The forward facing content is of course going to be introductory. The "beyond" comes in the crunch within these forums.
If you disagree with "the facts" of some D&D content, there is plenty of space to contend with those errors in the comments under said content. Again, that's a productive tactic.
I do, in fact, comment on articles. And I see the same sorts of errors being repeated over and over again by the same writer. That tells me there is a pattern where either the writer is not bothering to fact-check his own work, or DDB is not bothering to cross check his claims.
"Fact check", what "facts" are being misrepresented in a 101? In this thread you provided an instance where you objected to the guidance provided by a 101, and other posters identified the flaw seeming to be more a misunderstanding on your end as to what the 101's mission is rather than some true flaw within the 101. I will say bandying about not fully grasped understanding of publishing and editorial processes doesn't help your argument (going back again to your claim's reception to date).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Whether or not you like J.H. (for the record, I don't - his articles are basically all opinion pieces, and I don't share his opinions) is unimportant. What matters is that he's currently the only active writer on DDB's front page.
Having more writers means more view points, which is objectively a good thing.
Already discussed. DDB has a bigger job than providing content articles. Would you have them sacrifice financial resources dedicated to tool development and maintenance in favor of articles which are easily found to your tastes elsewhere? Your claim of an "objectively good thing" is uninformed by the realties of managing content (on top of the D&D Beyond's primary mission). It's pretty to think a bunch of voices can simply be managed to produce content adhering to D&D Beyond's outward facing language style and the ability to both adhere and adjust to calendar demands ... but in objective reality whether freelancers or full timers, it's a managerial headache in labor and cost as opposed to having a single house writer who integrates with the rest of the voices of D&D Beyond (you are aware of like the Todd Talks etc, which I think get more resources than the written content D&D provides).
Again, J.H.'s writing does the work of making D&D accessible for beginners and casual players, encouraging a level of depth and opening base line awareness, ideally (from a DDB business perspective) inspiring more than casual engagement with the game. Can it be done differently? Sure. And there's plenty of space in the DDB where different voices can be raised ... for free. Sounds like a good business.
I'm wondering, again on the constructive front, whether any of the nay or 'not enough' voices here bothered to participate in the DDB survey not too long ago that specifically asked about content beyond the tools. There's a way to criticize and question, but again looking at the bulk of the feedback the 101s get, it's very positive (and we're talking about the internet where positive feedback is hard sell).
I'm pretty sure we don't know anything about their financial situation. Its entirely possible that J.H. is a volunteer, at least when it comes to the articles. And there could be outreach for more volunteers to submit articles. Or maybe they have the budget, but just don't care. I mean, unless you somehow have access to their tax information.... Do you actually have any proof, or are you just assuming?
And I'm not sure why you're going on a rant about whether he does good or not at me; comes off as you just being super defensive. Irregardless if you like his work or not, having more than a single dude's view point promotes variety, and variety is good.
Have you noticed that the many of the SubClass 101 feature articles do not actually give helpful advice on building to the strengths (narratively or mechanically) of classes? This seems to be a recurring pattern with the recent Warlock subclass articles, but probably dates back much earlier.
It seems strange to me that DDB doesn't pay people who are actually experts at playing certain classes to write the articles for those classes. Instead, they keep inviting the exact same person to write their subclass 101 articles, and frankly, some of the advice provided by Mr. Haeck is not good and shows a general pattern of disregard for the particular proficiencies and uniqueness of each subclass.
Considering how many hobbyists make YouTube channels and post on websites about kick-butt builds, it puzzles me that DDB has not, thus far, bothered to broaden their talent pool of writers in this regard.
I'm not sure of the exact business relationship between Beyond and Jamie Haeck, but it does seem to be that he is on some sort of continuing payroll as a writer. Investing time and money into cultivating a pool of writers is hard. They tried to add a comedy writer a while back, but got a lot of negative response. That's probably turned them off to looking for other writers at the moment.
Can you elaborate a little more on what the specific issues are that you're noticing in these articles? Bear in mind that these seem to be written for people thinking about playing one, who may know nothing about the class/archetype, so a very basic intro seems to be the goal.
It's a 101, which is often used for an introductory course at a beginner's level. It's not supposed to be an experts guide to class building if that's what you are thinking.
How is it considered even decent advice to recommend Beguiling Influence as an Eldrtich Invocation? Skills that someone can get from their race or background are completely wasted.
Also, Haeck recommends Pact of the Blade for almost every Warlock subclass when it's clear that Archfey and GOOlocks features emphasize stuff for getting OUT of the frontlines instead of tanking. The recommendations are so haphazard and sloppy.
I mean, it's not even a recommendation, he is talking about thinking about where you want to put your scores.
The reality is, newer people tend to gravitate towards melee combat, I've been playing D&D for years and most of the people I introduce to the game lean towards melee until they get an understanding of the game and figure out how they truly like to play. Some stick with melee, others don't.
Again, this is solid advice for anyone who doesn't want to pick their background just for the skills it gives. People play different ways and there is nothing wrong with buffing your skills with an invocation.
The guy is giving advice that isn't actually recommendations at all, just helpful advice for a beginner to read and build from. Class 101 isn't supposed to be telling you how to optimally build a specific character, it's relative advice that beginners can take and build in any direction they like.
I completely agree with you. These articles are supposed to help new players, not help experts choose the most mechanically sound options. Personally, I enjoy all of Haeck's articles, especially the Encounter of the Week ones.
All stars fade. Some stars forever fall.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homebrew (Mostly Outdated): Magic Items, Monsters, Spells, Subclasses
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there was no light, people wouldn't fear the dark.
Haeck's articles aren't "This is The Way" so much as "let's wrap our minds around these features." The 101 series are orientations, not masterclasses, so to speak; and as such, they do the work.
Personally, I don't go to DDB for the articles. And while I'm mostly here for the tools and fun on the forum, I'm aware that DDB is often an entry point to the game. As such, I'm glad DDB does spend some resources providing 101 level content, as we well as the encounters (which are generally geared to entry level style play). I myself will sometimes send a newish player to a 101 when they're thinking about a character. Is there more sophisticated commentary out there beyond D&D Beyond? Sure. Channel surfing should always be encouraged. But I think DDB and Haeck do laudable on ramp work in this space.
There's something I don't like about a thread calling out a single author's work (and work I see more as the author "doing their job" as others have identified). It's doubly vexing because all the 101 Write Ups have space to engage the author or put up "better" or "more advanced ideas". I mean I have nothing against substantial criticism, I do it myself quite a bit. I think it would be more constructive for a thread to be something more like "support for more advanced players on DDB" ... but that's basically this forum, which I'm glad DDB supports.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Short examination of conscience.
When was the last time that you commended instead of condemned those that were sincerely trying to do their best?
Haeck is putting forth effort that I'm 100% certain is useful to someone. It's also accessible for free. Good on him. Thanks James.
All things Lich - DM tips, tricks, and other creative shenanigans
I like that 101 articles are not super focused on combat, as there is so much more to D&D than combat. Optimizing characters for combat can come later.
If the adventure is very light on combat encounters and very heavy on social and environmental encounters, then combat builds are not going to do so well. If the adventure is focused on trade and political intrigue, most combat builds are not going to be all that useful.
Scientific exploration, exposing bribery and corruption, helping settlers to establish a new settlement, etc. are adventures that might not require much combat at all.
An elite force of commandos filled with adventurers seems to be a dime a dozen. On the other hand, an adventuring monk with savvy communication and negotiation skills would be critical for successfully establishing diplomatic relations with a new nation. An interdimensional travelling sorcerer could provide valuable services in trading goods between worlds. A rogue with expertise in Perception, Investigation, and Insight could be a great inspector or undercover journalist.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
Just want to thank JH and all the others that work on this platform. It was one of the first places I found when I returned to DND and has been a great resource and intro to the community.
Combat-focused or not isn't the issue. The question is why not have some writers who are actually familiar with the class write articles pertaining to the class. I'm not saying that articles need to be about high DPR or "how to max your CHA," but they should provide genuinely helpful build advice that isn't just a hodge podge copy-and-paste just from a previous article from another subclass.
It's also frustrating that, clearly, DDB isn't hiring copy editors to go over class build articles for accuracy. If a writer writes factually incorrect information, that does reflect negatively on the website that commissioned the piece of writing.
I like James articles, this post however I find rude and obnoxious by someone who doesn't understand how the real world works. You think James is getting rich and has a long time to put articles together? Dream on and as someone else mentioned, calling out authors, critiquing individuals work here on their companies website with a very subjective opinion, is quite disgusting.
I've found some of his articles to be both compelling to read AND useful. I even recommended one to my newish DM a short while ago.
In regards to your remark about expertise in the field of essentially powerbuilding a class, you can just look it up online across multiple forums and 5e doesn't have a huge spectrum to powerbuild with. You're just looking up the same thing over and over again with a different format. It's not that hard to find stuff to build with. Hell, you can even jump down in to the subforums with all the different classes and ASK people on here what they have made and I'm sure more than a few of them will have come up with something!
I might recommend reading DMG Chapter 1: Play Style and judging what you think James is going for. I see as him leaning towards "immersive storytelling" rather than hack 'n' slash but doesn't skip the sidelines and does mention useful feats to take if you are expecting some combat.
I'm curious, when was the last time you saw a "factually incorrect" 101, and you yourself engaged in that 101's commentary and feedback? That would be constructive criticism and participation within an online community. The "take down" you're providing here hasn't gained a single endorsee in almost a month. On the contrary, the comments on this thread are a mix of 1.) asks for greater clarity since they don't recognize your concern as a true problem or 2.) efforts to encourage you to recognize that the 101s provide have value, maybe not to you, but to the audience for which they're intended (those in need of 101 tutorials or introductions).
There's a lot of reasons why a publication, or a toolset and digital adapter who includes introductory guidance and creative inspiration as a free value added to the site, may opt to employ a staff writer than some stable of freelance experts. Consistent product and the ability to stick to a schedule established by the publishers is one, a capacity to nimbly adapt to changes in internal timelines and priorities is another. FWIW "copy editors" don't do what you suggest they do, so I'd suggest looking more into how editorial processes actually work in various scaled outlets prior to making pretty bold claims about content's impact on an outlets reputation.
As pointed out a few times already, if you want "expert" level thought exchange, that's what these forums are for. DDB is trying to grow the hobby as an entry point "and beyond". The forward facing content is of course going to be introductory. The "beyond" comes in the crunch within these forums.
If you disagree with "the facts" of some D&D content, there is plenty of space to contend with those errors in the comments under said content. Again, that's a productive tactic.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I do, in fact, comment on articles. And I see the same sorts of errors being repeated over and over again by the same writer. That tells me there is a pattern where either the writer is not bothering to fact-check his own work, or DDB is not bothering to cross check his claims.
Can you point out those errors so we have a frame of reference to go on?
"Fact check", what "facts" are being misrepresented in a 101? In this thread you provided an instance where you objected to the guidance provided by a 101, and other posters identified the flaw seeming to be more a misunderstanding on your end as to what the 101's mission is rather than some true flaw within the 101. I will say bandying about not fully grasped understanding of publishing and editorial processes doesn't help your argument (going back again to your claim's reception to date).
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Whether or not you like J.H. (for the record, I don't - his articles are basically all opinion pieces, and I don't share his opinions) is unimportant. What matters is that he's currently the only active writer on DDB's front page.
Having more writers means more view points, which is objectively a good thing.
Already discussed. DDB has a bigger job than providing content articles. Would you have them sacrifice financial resources dedicated to tool development and maintenance in favor of articles which are easily found to your tastes elsewhere? Your claim of an "objectively good thing" is uninformed by the realties of managing content (on top of the D&D Beyond's primary mission). It's pretty to think a bunch of voices can simply be managed to produce content adhering to D&D Beyond's outward facing language style and the ability to both adhere and adjust to calendar demands ... but in objective reality whether freelancers or full timers, it's a managerial headache in labor and cost as opposed to having a single house writer who integrates with the rest of the voices of D&D Beyond (you are aware of like the Todd Talks etc, which I think get more resources than the written content D&D provides).
Again, J.H.'s writing does the work of making D&D accessible for beginners and casual players, encouraging a level of depth and opening base line awareness, ideally (from a DDB business perspective) inspiring more than casual engagement with the game. Can it be done differently? Sure. And there's plenty of space in the DDB where different voices can be raised ... for free. Sounds like a good business.
I'm wondering, again on the constructive front, whether any of the nay or 'not enough' voices here bothered to participate in the DDB survey not too long ago that specifically asked about content beyond the tools. There's a way to criticize and question, but again looking at the bulk of the feedback the 101s get, it's very positive (and we're talking about the internet where positive feedback is hard sell).
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I'm pretty sure we don't know anything about their financial situation. Its entirely possible that J.H. is a volunteer, at least when it comes to the articles. And there could be outreach for more volunteers to submit articles. Or maybe they have the budget, but just don't care. I mean, unless you somehow have access to their tax information.... Do you actually have any proof, or are you just assuming?
And I'm not sure why you're going on a rant about whether he does good or not at me; comes off as you just being super defensive. Irregardless if you like his work or not, having more than a single dude's view point promotes variety, and variety is good.