Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nemesis Destiny" data-source="post: 5393273" data-attributes="member: 98255">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.</blockquote>

Verification