Have you ever noticed that class guides almost always focus on how to build a character instead of on how to use what the class has in the most effective way?
For example, I’d be surprised if any monk guide mentions trying to get to the rear line of an enemy party to lock up the wizards or an illiusionist guide advises an illusionist to use malleable illusion on Seeming to try to confuse the enemy party as to who is their ally and who isn’t.
It seems to me that, while instructions on creating characters is certainly useful, including advice on how to best use a character’s abilities would be an improvement.
Along the same idea, advice on how to manage a character could also be helpful. For example, scripts for roll20 which can make it easier for a necromancer to manage all their undead.
There's a few problems with that. First of all, "the most effective way" is often subjective. So I don't think it would work if they do that, especially if new players will gravitate towards that style of game.
Second, D&D is not necessarily a game about optimizing, min-maxing, power-gaming, etc. So telling people to play their characters "the most effective way" would, again, steer them in a very specific kind of play that isn't necessarily the most fun for everyone. Clearly Wizards of the Coast isn't about that, because they give a lot of options aside from the optimal ones. One of the most fun things about this game is that you can do whatever you want. If you're a new player and the book itself is telling you the most efficient way to play...sure, you can just ignore it, but as a new player you probably won't.
I actually think that giving this kind of advice would be worse for the game. If a player really wants to know what's the most effective way to play their character, they can always look online for comments. If they're already that dedicated to this goal, then it's easy to find guidance. But the book itself shouldn't be partial towards specific styles of play. Letting the players discover themselves what works better for them is part of the fun.
There's a few problems with that. First of all, "the most effective way" is often subjective. So I don't think it would work if they do that, especially if new players will gravitate towards that style of game.
Second, D&D is not necessarily a game about optimizing, min-maxing, power-gaming, etc. So telling people to play their characters "the most effective way" would, again, steer them in a very specific kind of play that isn't necessarily the most fun for everyone. Clearly Wizards of the Coast isn't about that, because they give a lot of options aside from the optimal ones. One of the most fun things about this game is that you can do whatever you want. If you're a new player and the book itself is telling you the most efficient way to play...sure, you can just ignore it, but as a new player you probably won't.
I actually think that giving this kind of advice would be worse for the game. If a player really wants to know what's the most effective way to play their character, they can always look online for comments. If they're already that dedicated to this goal, then it's easy to find guidance. But the book itself shouldn't be partial towards specific styles of play. Letting the players discover themselves what works better for them is part of the fun.
To be clear, I never said anything about putting this stuff in a book. I was suggesting that guide writers include this information.
how could you possibly plan your characters progression in detail. At least enough that you would need a whole guide to do it?
I have never had a character progress exactly how i first envisioned it so I no longer even bother.
I pick a race, a class, Arrange my stats to best fit what I want and then something of a background and go with the flow of the game after that. Pick your gear and personal stuff. If the Dm wants me to pick more stuff like feats I go along with it.
But pretty much you could just hand me a character and I am good to go.
New players should not be getting guides but instead should be learning what their characters can do at what ever level they are at. Experienced players should help as little as possible and try to stay out of it during battles.
When another character is rolling you should be planning your next move or two.
People who write guides basically just like telling everyone what they like and think you should do. People who read guides are either looking for that one trick, are really board or do not want to learn all the rules.
Many new players are afraid of embarrassing themselves or getting their friends mad at them because of a mistake. We can try to assure them that it will be okay if they make a mistake. We _should_ assure them that it will be okay if they make a mistake. We can _also_ give them advice in learning how to make the best of their character’s potential.
There's a few problems with that. First of all, "the most effective way" is often subjective. So I don't think it would work if they do that, especially if new players will gravitate towards that style of game.
Second, D&D is not necessarily a game about optimizing, min-maxing, power-gaming, etc. So telling people to play their characters "the most effective way" would, again, steer them in a very specific kind of play that isn't necessarily the most fun for everyone. Clearly Wizards of the Coast isn't about that, because they give a lot of options aside from the optimal ones. One of the most fun things about this game is that you can do whatever you want. If you're a new player and the book itself is telling you the most efficient way to play...sure, you can just ignore it, but as a new player you probably won't.
I actually think that giving this kind of advice would be worse for the game. If a player really wants to know what's the most effective way to play their character, they can always look online for comments. If they're already that dedicated to this goal, then it's easy to find guidance. But the book itself shouldn't be partial towards specific styles of play. Letting the players discover themselves what works better for them is part of the fun.
I do think there is some bad advice in the actual book. The book itself should give you optimal options to pick. Once you learn how to play the game, you can choose suboptimal choices if you want to, but you shouldn't start the game with those suboptimal choices or you may feel like your character is missing something or isn't as effective as the rest of the party.
There's a few problems with that. First of all, "the most effective way" is often subjective. So I don't think it would work if they do that, especially if new players will gravitate towards that style of game.
Second, D&D is not necessarily a game about optimizing, min-maxing, power-gaming, etc. So telling people to play their characters "the most effective way" would, again, steer them in a very specific kind of play that isn't necessarily the most fun for everyone. Clearly Wizards of the Coast isn't about that, because they give a lot of options aside from the optimal ones. One of the most fun things about this game is that you can do whatever you want. If you're a new player and the book itself is telling you the most efficient way to play...sure, you can just ignore it, but as a new player you probably won't.
I actually think that giving this kind of advice would be worse for the game. If a player really wants to know what's the most effective way to play their character, they can always look online for comments. If they're already that dedicated to this goal, then it's easy to find guidance. But the book itself shouldn't be partial towards specific styles of play. Letting the players discover themselves what works better for them is part of the fun.
I do think there is some bad advice in the actual book. The book itself should give you optimal options to pick. Once you learn how to play the game, you can choose suboptimal choices if you want to, but you shouldn't start the game with those suboptimal choices or you may feel like your character is missing something or isn't as effective as the rest of the party.
The problem with that is that, if the book gave you optimal options, then they'd be basically telling you "We're giving you these 3 options, but these two are worse than this other one, so choose it." New players would be like "Why would you make the other two options, then?" Yes, the suggestions aren't always "optimal". For example, the book suggests expertise in Performance for a bard. Is that what would be considered "optimal"? Absolutely not. Not for most campaigns, anyway. But I think it's good that the book suggests to play into the most iconic features of classes so you get a feel of what the class traditionally is, and then once you're more experienced, you can optimize all you want. I doubt players will feel they're missing something if they don't take the most optimal choices for their characters. If everyone is a beginner then it should be fine. If the rest of the part is experienced and this one player isn't, then they're gonna feel less effective than the rest no matter what. That's another topic, how to handle beginners and experienced players in the same party.
There's a few problems with that. First of all, "the most effective way" is often subjective. So I don't think it would work if they do that, especially if new players will gravitate towards that style of game.
Second, D&D is not necessarily a game about optimizing, min-maxing, power-gaming, etc. So telling people to play their characters "the most effective way" would, again, steer them in a very specific kind of play that isn't necessarily the most fun for everyone. Clearly Wizards of the Coast isn't about that, because they give a lot of options aside from the optimal ones. One of the most fun things about this game is that you can do whatever you want. If you're a new player and the book itself is telling you the most efficient way to play...sure, you can just ignore it, but as a new player you probably won't.
I actually think that giving this kind of advice would be worse for the game. If a player really wants to know what's the most effective way to play their character, they can always look online for comments. If they're already that dedicated to this goal, then it's easy to find guidance. But the book itself shouldn't be partial towards specific styles of play. Letting the players discover themselves what works better for them is part of the fun.
I do think there is some bad advice in the actual book. The book itself should give you optimal options to pick. Once you learn how to play the game, you can choose suboptimal choices if you want to, but you shouldn't start the game with those suboptimal choices or you may feel like your character is missing something or isn't as effective as the rest of the party.
The problem with that is that, if the book gave you optimal options, then they'd be basically telling you "We're giving you these 3 options, but these two are worse than this other one, so choose it." New players would be like "Why would you make the other two options, then?" Yes, the suggestions aren't always "optimal". For example, the book suggests expertise in Performance for a bard. Is that what would be considered "optimal"? Absolutely not. Not for most campaigns, anyway. But I think it's good that the book suggests to play into the most iconic features of classes so you get a feel of what the class traditionally is, and then once you're more experienced, you can optimize all you want. I doubt players will feel they're missing something if they don't take the most optimal choices for their characters. If everyone is a beginner then it should be fine. If the rest of the part is experienced and this one player isn't, then they're gonna feel less effective than the rest no matter what. That's another topic, how to handle beginners and experienced players in the same party.
What book?
When did I ever say anything about a book?
You’ve clearly not been paying attention. I mentioned guides, not books. _Guides_. Guides are documents players create and put on the Internet, such as those I linked to above .
Have you ever noticed that class guides almost always focus on how to build a character instead of on how to use what the class has in the most effective way?
For example, I’d be surprised if any monk guide mentions trying to get to the rear line of an enemy party to lock up the wizards or an illiusionist guide advises an illusionist to use malleable illusion on Seeming to try to confuse the enemy party as to who is their ally and who isn’t.
It seems to me that, while instructions on creating characters is certainly useful, including advice on how to best use a character’s abilities would be an improvement.
Along the same idea, advice on how to manage a character could also be helpful. For example, scripts for roll20 which can make it easier for a necromancer to manage all their undead.
Yes and no. I wouldn't focus on the most "effective" way to play the character, but I do wish guides explained the type / style of play that the classes are most suited to, just like how the Dungeon Dudes generally have a flavour section in their guides where they talk about existing characters in media that fit the archetype of the class.
There's a few problems with that. First of all, "the most effective way" is often subjective. So I don't think it would work if they do that, especially if new players will gravitate towards that style of game.
Second, D&D is not necessarily a game about optimizing, min-maxing, power-gaming, etc. So telling people to play their characters "the most effective way" would, again, steer them in a very specific kind of play that isn't necessarily the most fun for everyone. Clearly Wizards of the Coast isn't about that, because they give a lot of options aside from the optimal ones. One of the most fun things about this game is that you can do whatever you want. If you're a new player and the book itself is telling you the most efficient way to play...sure, you can just ignore it, but as a new player you probably won't.
I actually think that giving this kind of advice would be worse for the game. If a player really wants to know what's the most effective way to play their character, they can always look online for comments. If they're already that dedicated to this goal, then it's easy to find guidance. But the book itself shouldn't be partial towards specific styles of play. Letting the players discover themselves what works better for them is part of the fun.
I do think there is some bad advice in the actual book. The book itself should give you optimal options to pick. Once you learn how to play the game, you can choose suboptimal choices if you want to, but you shouldn't start the game with those suboptimal choices or you may feel like your character is missing something or isn't as effective as the rest of the party.
The problem with that is that, if the book gave you optimal options, then they'd be basically telling you "We're giving you these 3 options, but these two are worse than this other one, so choose it." New players would be like "Why would you make the other two options, then?" Yes, the suggestions aren't always "optimal". For example, the book suggests expertise in Performance for a bard. Is that what would be considered "optimal"? Absolutely not. Not for most campaigns, anyway. But I think it's good that the book suggests to play into the most iconic features of classes so you get a feel of what the class traditionally is, and then once you're more experienced, you can optimize all you want. I doubt players will feel they're missing something if they don't take the most optimal choices for their characters. If everyone is a beginner then it should be fine. If the rest of the part is experienced and this one player isn't, then they're gonna feel less effective than the rest no matter what. That's another topic, how to handle beginners and experienced players in the same party.
What book?
When did I ever say anything about a book?
You’ve clearly not been paying attention. I mentioned guides, not books. _Guides_. Guides are documents players create and put on the Internet, such as those I linked to above .
This reply was not for you. See the names quoted? They did talk about the book, so I replied. Maybe you should be the one paying attention. ;)
I remember way back in v2 that actual guides were published for each class. In the end they pretty much ended up full of fluff and bs and were not needed to play.
The guides did have a lot of ideas for new players. But they tended to not recommend play styles.
I think if WOTC ever published an official players guide they would not want to start recommending specific play styles or optimal set ups and classes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Have you ever noticed that class guides almost always focus on how to build a character instead of on how to use what the class has in the most effective way?
For example, I’d be surprised if any monk guide mentions trying to get to the rear line of an enemy party to lock up the wizards or an illiusionist guide advises an illusionist to use malleable illusion on Seeming to try to confuse the enemy party as to who is their ally and who isn’t.
It seems to me that, while instructions on creating characters is certainly useful, including advice on how to best use a character’s abilities would be an improvement.
Along the same idea, advice on how to manage a character could also be helpful. For example, scripts for roll20 which can make it easier for a necromancer to manage all their undead.
There's a few problems with that. First of all, "the most effective way" is often subjective. So I don't think it would work if they do that, especially if new players will gravitate towards that style of game.
Second, D&D is not necessarily a game about optimizing, min-maxing, power-gaming, etc. So telling people to play their characters "the most effective way" would, again, steer them in a very specific kind of play that isn't necessarily the most fun for everyone. Clearly Wizards of the Coast isn't about that, because they give a lot of options aside from the optimal ones. One of the most fun things about this game is that you can do whatever you want. If you're a new player and the book itself is telling you the most efficient way to play...sure, you can just ignore it, but as a new player you probably won't.
I actually think that giving this kind of advice would be worse for the game. If a player really wants to know what's the most effective way to play their character, they can always look online for comments. If they're already that dedicated to this goal, then it's easy to find guidance. But the book itself shouldn't be partial towards specific styles of play. Letting the players discover themselves what works better for them is part of the fun.
To be clear, I never said anything about putting this stuff in a book. I was suggesting that guide writers include this information.
how could you possibly plan your characters progression in detail. At least enough that you would need a whole guide to do it?
I have never had a character progress exactly how i first envisioned it so I no longer even bother.
I pick a race, a class, Arrange my stats to best fit what I want and then something of a background and go with the flow of the game after that. Pick your gear and personal stuff. If the Dm wants me to pick more stuff like feats I go along with it.
But pretty much you could just hand me a character and I am good to go.
New players should not be getting guides but instead should be learning what their characters can do at what ever level they are at. Experienced players should help as little as possible and try to stay out of it during battles.
When another character is rolling you should be planning your next move or two.
People who write guides basically just like telling everyone what they like and think you should do.
People who read guides are either looking for that one trick, are really board or do not want to learn all the rules.
Just look at the mechanical focus class guides here
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/tips-tactics/5499-guides-tables-and-other-useful-resources
Many new players are afraid of embarrassing themselves or getting their friends mad at them because of a mistake. We can try to assure them that it will be okay if they make a mistake. We _should_ assure them that it will be okay if they make a mistake. We can _also_ give them advice in learning how to make the best of their character’s potential.
I do think there is some bad advice in the actual book. The book itself should give you optimal options to pick. Once you learn how to play the game, you can choose suboptimal choices if you want to, but you shouldn't start the game with those suboptimal choices or you may feel like your character is missing something or isn't as effective as the rest of the party.
The problem with that is that, if the book gave you optimal options, then they'd be basically telling you "We're giving you these 3 options, but these two are worse than this other one, so choose it." New players would be like "Why would you make the other two options, then?" Yes, the suggestions aren't always "optimal". For example, the book suggests expertise in Performance for a bard. Is that what would be considered "optimal"? Absolutely not. Not for most campaigns, anyway. But I think it's good that the book suggests to play into the most iconic features of classes so you get a feel of what the class traditionally is, and then once you're more experienced, you can optimize all you want. I doubt players will feel they're missing something if they don't take the most optimal choices for their characters. If everyone is a beginner then it should be fine. If the rest of the part is experienced and this one player isn't, then they're gonna feel less effective than the rest no matter what. That's another topic, how to handle beginners and experienced players in the same party.
What book?
When did I ever say anything about a book?
You’ve clearly not been paying attention. I mentioned guides, not books. _Guides_. Guides are documents players create and put on the Internet, such as those I linked to above .
Yes and no. I wouldn't focus on the most "effective" way to play the character, but I do wish guides explained the type / style of play that the classes are most suited to, just like how the Dungeon Dudes generally have a flavour section in their guides where they talk about existing characters in media that fit the archetype of the class.
This reply was not for you. See the names quoted? They did talk about the book, so I replied. Maybe you should be the one paying attention. ;)
I remember way back in v2 that actual guides were published for each class. In the end they pretty much ended up full of fluff and bs and were not needed to play.
The guides did have a lot of ideas for new players. But they tended to not recommend play styles.
I think if WOTC ever published an official players guide they would not want to start recommending specific play styles or optimal set ups and classes.