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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MrMyth" data-source="post: 5658567" data-attributes="member: 61155">I'm not sure what scale you are going by. Both 'poorly-played' and well-played Slayers are perfectly effective in an average party - having a good attack roll, decent damage, solid defenses and good hitpoints. In the typical encounters for an average party, they will do just fine at contributing to victory. They are only 'ineffective' when compared to the top-tier of the most heavily optimized strikers, which doesn't seem an especially reasonable comparison - and if you are making that comparison, I'm not sure how the 'optimized' Slayers are somehow more broken than many other optimized strikers.   Again, I think you are measuring by a standard way beyond what most people use. Strikers are only acceptable if they attack multiple enemies or make multiple attacks? No way. Those may be the easiest way to optimize, sure, but in terms of an average party, one is perfectly able to contribute with a Slayer or a Barbarian or a Rogue.   All the advantages of a Ranger? You mean, aside from the primary one - the multiple attacks? Thieves make for high accuracy single target damage, just like Rogues. I find the two about on the same level - Thieves have the edge in being able to ensure Combat Advantage and focus on charging/basic attacks, while Rogues get the versatility and power (including multiple targets, multiple attacks, and powerful conditions) of their chosen Encounter Powers.  Thieves and Scouts are at the top tier of strikers, just like Rogues and Rangers are. I'm not seeing any indication that the Essentials classes are more optimizable or more overpowered in any way.   Again, I really don't know what standard you are measuring things by. "The bottom", in my experience, are parties with rogues who use hand crossbows and never have combat advantage, or paladins with high charisma and low strength who choose strength based powers, or star warlocks with stats spread across the entire spectrum... etc.  There are a lot more 'traps' to run into trying to build or play pre-Essentials characters. The default is still decent, compared to past editions, but you can still end up with a subpar character - all of the above are things I've seen firsthand. Its even harder with Essentials. Less options - both in char-gen and play - make it harder to stumble into multiple bad choices. Again, not a style for everyone. For some, though, its just what they want.   Dude, seriously, your experiences do not somehow trump those of others. It's excellent that you have played with folks who have not had these issues. Nonetheless, others have. I have, with intelligent adults, who nonetheless will dither over a sheet of powers for several minutes - or not want to deal with it and just resort to basic attacks. Or, as noted, others for whom prodding is needed - and much easier to do in Essentials, when you don't need to constantly retcon what power they should have used.  You don't get to say, "Oh, it isn't an issue for me, so it can't be an issue for others. If it is, there is clearly something wrong with them." That's just not cool.   Yes, in my current game. He has provided effective healing and does a lot of debuffing enemies via his effect based At-Wills and Encounters. Again, all he has lost out on is Healing Lore, and has picked up a number of useful abilities in its place. What is it that you think makes them so incredibly flawed?   Well, the warpriest as presented lets them choose just freely from the cleric list. In my current game, I think only the Warpriest's daily is from the normal cleric list, though. The rest are domain powers, and have been perfectly fine at preserving the party. His at-wills debuff the enemy, his encounters buff the party, his utilities provide healing or temps, etc.  Going back to your original complaint about the Warpriest, it was that he's "attacking the highest AC critter on the board with an AC attack because you dont have any other options."  Which, if I understand correctly, means you only consider the normal Cleric (and any other leader) to be good because they can target non-AC defenses? And that if they choose any powers that target AC, it means they are a poorly designed character?  (Not to mention that, even if you only attack AC, I don't see anything about the Warpriest forcing them to go after the highest AC critter on the board...) Again, you are welcome to build awesome and optimized characters for your own games, but I really don't think they should be the standard by which all things should be judged by. Which, as far as I can tell, is what you are doing.  You are perfectly fine to consider Essentials too complex/too simple/too overpowered/too ineffective, or... whatever you feel it is. You are perfectly fine to not like it. But I don't buy the argument about it having these intense flaws, nor do I feel that your evaluations are based on any reasonable standard by which characters should be judged. (Or even if they are, I'm relatively confident 90% of the pre-Essentials classes would be considered just as flawed.)  Above all, I reject your claims that because you don't have an issue with the pre-Essentials classes, it means that the experiences of myself and others are null and void. Dismissing (and even insulting) those whose experiences diverge from your own just isn't cool.</blockquote>

Verification