Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Essentials classes - eaiser to play... at reduced tactical complexity?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="OnlineDM" data-source="post: 5582305" data-attributes="member: 90804"><p>Your suspicions are more or less correct for the simplified Essentials classes (this doesn't apply to the Mage, Warpriest, etc. - the classes that still have the AEDU - At-Will, Encounter, Daily, Utility - structure). I've seen a bunch of them in play (and used some of them myself) and they do appear to be simple to play (not just simple to build) compared to original 4e versions of those classes.</p><p></p><p>Thief: He has some tactical choices about which exact move to use this turn, but it doesn't usually matter much - he's going to get combat advantage (either directly from the move itself or from flanking) and not take any opportunity attacks. My take on the thief in action is <a href="http://onlinedm.wordpress.com/2011/05/28/the-4e-thief-is-brutally-effective-and-boring/" target="_blank">here</a>.</p><p></p><p>Slayer: I've only seen one or two in play, but it's about the simplest class in 4e. You walk up to something and smash it in the face for a bunch of damage. The stances are usually even less interesting than the Thief's movement tricks, and it's typical for the Slayer to pick one stance (do I want extra damage or extra accuracy?) and stay in it. Hulk smash.</p><p></p><p>Knight: Slightly more interesting in play since there's an element of trying to position the Knight so that the maximum number of enemies are in the defender aura. Plus, he has to remember to turn that aura on (but really just once per day - then it stays on). I've seen the Knight change stances a little more often than the Slayer. But it's certainly easier than having to remember to mark the people you attacked as with the PHB1 Fighter (sigh - "Weaponmaster").</p><p></p><p>Hunter: I've played one of these through 4th level in Living Forgotten Realms. He's a little more interesting since the decision about when to use Disruptive Shot is more of a decision than when to use Power Strike (whenever you hit something other than a minion) or Backstab (whenever you want to really wreck something). Disruptive Shot and Clever Shot (the bread and butter attack) also provide choices on a hit (daze/immobilize for Disruptive, prone/slow/slide for Clever). Finding a good place to drop a Rapid Shot is a little bit interesting as well. But overall, I'd say the Hunter is still pretty simple.</p><p></p><p>Scout: I've not actually seen one in action yet, so I can't say too much about it.</p><p></p><p>Cavalier: An interesting case, as the Cavalier actually does have the AEDU structure. However, a player in one of my games created a Cavalier and played her for a few sessions and then asked to change to something else because the Cavalier felt boring to her compared to what the other characters were able to do. Again, the defender aura is simpler than Divine Challenge from the original Paladin. Having played an original Paladin for 10 levels of LFR, I think that the Paladin is generally a pretty straightforward class anyway, so it's not so much an issue of the Cavalier being over-simplified as the Paladin not really being what this particular player was looking for.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="OnlineDM, post: 5582305, member: 90804"] Your suspicions are more or less correct for the simplified Essentials classes (this doesn't apply to the Mage, Warpriest, etc. - the classes that still have the AEDU - At-Will, Encounter, Daily, Utility - structure). I've seen a bunch of them in play (and used some of them myself) and they do appear to be simple to play (not just simple to build) compared to original 4e versions of those classes. Thief: He has some tactical choices about which exact move to use this turn, but it doesn't usually matter much - he's going to get combat advantage (either directly from the move itself or from flanking) and not take any opportunity attacks. My take on the thief in action is [URL="http://onlinedm.wordpress.com/2011/05/28/the-4e-thief-is-brutally-effective-and-boring/"]here[/URL]. Slayer: I've only seen one or two in play, but it's about the simplest class in 4e. You walk up to something and smash it in the face for a bunch of damage. The stances are usually even less interesting than the Thief's movement tricks, and it's typical for the Slayer to pick one stance (do I want extra damage or extra accuracy?) and stay in it. Hulk smash. Knight: Slightly more interesting in play since there's an element of trying to position the Knight so that the maximum number of enemies are in the defender aura. Plus, he has to remember to turn that aura on (but really just once per day - then it stays on). I've seen the Knight change stances a little more often than the Slayer. But it's certainly easier than having to remember to mark the people you attacked as with the PHB1 Fighter (sigh - "Weaponmaster"). Hunter: I've played one of these through 4th level in Living Forgotten Realms. He's a little more interesting since the decision about when to use Disruptive Shot is more of a decision than when to use Power Strike (whenever you hit something other than a minion) or Backstab (whenever you want to really wreck something). Disruptive Shot and Clever Shot (the bread and butter attack) also provide choices on a hit (daze/immobilize for Disruptive, prone/slow/slide for Clever). Finding a good place to drop a Rapid Shot is a little bit interesting as well. But overall, I'd say the Hunter is still pretty simple. Scout: I've not actually seen one in action yet, so I can't say too much about it. Cavalier: An interesting case, as the Cavalier actually does have the AEDU structure. However, a player in one of my games created a Cavalier and played her for a few sessions and then asked to change to something else because the Cavalier felt boring to her compared to what the other characters were able to do. Again, the defender aura is simpler than Divine Challenge from the original Paladin. Having played an original Paladin for 10 levels of LFR, I think that the Paladin is generally a pretty straightforward class anyway, so it's not so much an issue of the Cavalier being over-simplified as the Paladin not really being what this particular player was looking for. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Essentials classes - eaiser to play... at reduced tactical complexity?
Top