Essentials classes question

[Dionysos]

The Essentials classes absolutely generate fewer conditions than pre-Essentials characters. In fact, one of my the things that is making me consider going Essentials-only for characters is that it seems to eliminate the "everybody is a controller" syndrome that so plagues higher level pre-Essentials parties.

In Essentials, I think you'll find that wizards and warlocks generate about the same number of conditions as they always have, but all other classes generate far fewer. With mid and high level pre-Essentials parties, you'll often see the entire party (including defenders and leaders) open up fights with multiple stun, daze, slow, immobilize and restrain effects. An Essentials only party should have less of those shenanigans.

 

[Thraug]

The Essentials classes absolutely generate fewer conditions than pre-Essentials characters. In fact, one of my the things that is making me consider going Essentials-only for characters is that it seems to eliminate the "everybody is a controller" syndrome that so plagues higher level pre-Essentials parties.

I've been blazing through the first Heroes F** book and my cursory look confirms your claims of less conditions generated by Essentials classes. How much less? I can't tell without reading every power of every level. I did see that the Mage has lots of powers and many that apply as many conditions as before, but like you said, it seems to be mostly a Mage (Controller probably) benefit.

Maybe Essentials aims to make combats quicker and smoother. I don't have the Monster Vault (yet) but maybe the monsters in there also issue less conditions? One of the qualms I have with 4e is the overwhelming number of conditions put out by mobs and players. Uhg, just far too many, making combats lag more than they should.

 

[buddhafrog]

The martial classes are more streamlined; fighters and rogues have no encounter or daily powers.
In the game I'm playing, the dwarf Knight has four powers.....

Can't give you XP again, but wanted to thank you for the best breakdown I've seen. Very helpful - thanks.

 

[buddhafrog]

After 25 years away from the hobby, I re-started a year ago with 4e and love the concept of giving players attach options each round. However, I have come to agree with the OP - I feel that now there are too many options, too much tracking of conditions, and the characters are starting to feel too similar.

For these reasons, I've just bought the full Essentials line-up and am really looking forward to this approach. To me, it sounds like a perfect balance. I'm really excited about DM'ing Essentials.

 

[Dausuul]

I've recently had occasion to compare Essentials characters to non-Essentials characters in combat, in both cases at mid-Paragon tier. There really is no comparison from the DM's point of view. Everything goes so much faster, and it's much easier to wrap your head around what's going on.

Unfortunately, none of my players likes Essentials, so for now at least I'm stuck with old-style combat. Sigh.

 

[cavalier973]

We just started a 4e campaign using regular classes (not from Essentials) and we're already seeing power and condition overload. After reading a few recent threads here on epic tier play, and how crazy the power, condition, and combat complexity gets I thought that it might be a good idea to switch to Essentials only classes, hoping they were easier to play and generated less conditions and were less fiddly. I own the first Heroes of the F****** books but haven't read it yet.

My question is for folks who have read and understand the classes in both Essentials Heroes books:

• Are Essentials classes easier to play?
• Do Essentials classes generate less conditions than previous classes?
• Do Essentials classes have less powers/abilities than previous classes?

Thank you folks!

Another question that might be posed is "Are Essentials classes as fun/more fun to play than core classes?"

Having only actually played with Essentials characters, I have no basis for comparison. Someone else might be able to enlighten the curious on this point.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Another question that might be posed is "Are Essentials classes as fun/more fun to play than core classes?"

Having only actually played with Essentials characters, I have no basis for comparison. Someone else might be able to enlighten the curious on this point.

I think the answer to this really depends on the player. Some will like the simplicity of some of the new builds, others will hate it.

I like both approaches. If I have a good character idea that would be best served with essentials, I will use essentials. If the concept translates better to a standard (should I say "classic"?) 4e class, then that's what I will use.

I appreciate the streamlined nature of the Slayer, the elegant ease with which a Knight does his/her job as a Defender, and the deceptively simple way the Thief tricks work in battle.

But sometimes, you're thinking, "damn, I'd like an encounter / daily power about now."

That said, we play with a fellow who hates the ever-increasing levels of complexity since the halcyon days of 2e. He's all over the new Slayer build. The Knight, too.

In one of our games with "legacy" characters, his fighter got converted to a 4e sword-and-board PH1 Fighter, but he really didn't like it much. Too many options. He just kept basically spamming one of his at-wills all fight long, usually only using other powers if we prodded him to. And we always had to remind him about his marks.

We're letting him try out this old character converted to Essentials - both builds, actually - to see which one he prefers. Some poetic license is being allowed and if he goes Slayer, we will "ret-con" his weapon choice. He hasn't picked yet, but we'll see.

 

[Korgoth]

I'm definitely excited about Essentials. I may even try to run 4E with it at some point.

In the 4E game I play (1-2 games per month), I have a Fighter. He is actually getting to be a pain to manage (just hit 11th). And it takes people so long to sort through their powers and decide what to do. Nobody seems really to be thinking about the narrative aspects of the combat because we're all so busy figuring out which maneuver to do next.

 

[sigfile]

IIn the 4E game I play (1-2 games per month), I have a Fighter. He is actually getting to be a pain to manage (just hit 11th). And it takes people so long to sort through their powers and decide what to do. Nobody seems really to be thinking about the narrative aspects of the combat because we're all so busy figuring out which maneuver to do next.

This is exactly why I'm playing a Thief in my current game. I had been playing a paragon Warden; while the list of crazy abilities at my command was certainly welcome, I knew I was spending more time figuring out what I was going to pull out of my arsenal next and less time focusing on the story.

A character doesn't have to be complicated to be effective. I've been very pleased with the (brutally effective but simple) Thief so far.

 

[Korgoth]

This is exactly why I'm playing a Thief in my current game. I had been playing a paragon Warden; while the list of crazy abilities at my command was certainly welcome, I knew I was spending more time figuring out what I was going to pull out of my arsenal next and less time focusing on the story.

A character doesn't have to be complicated to be effective. I've been very pleased with the (brutally effective but simple) Thief so far.

When I first started out I was like "Cool! He plays just like a wizard."

Now it's getting to the point of "Rats! He plays just like a wizard."

Fighting is when story isn't happening. Story is when fighting isn't happening. For there to be a balance, fighting has to not take so darn long.