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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 5670962" data-attributes="member: 87792">To a small extent, I still find myself questioning the good faith of these posters who apparently misrepresent the opposing points.  To some people the boring part is the nitty gritty of the rules and the faff of handling abstract powers and power selection.  Describing what you are doing as you hit it is far more interesting and fun to them than an abstract tactical skirmish game.  And their effectiveness isn't overshadowed very much.Where new players includes players who have been playing 4e since it first came out and have been playing D&D longer than I have been alive.  Two at one of my tables.  New players like that?As far as I know you and Marshall are the only people asserting that other than in regular single encounter days the Essentials classes are any more unbalanced than the standard 4e ones are.  They are close enough under normal circumstances that you don't notice much difference (and are balanced on decently but not spectacularly optimised classes).  However the options and analysis paralysis and tactical play were more needed and not very acceptable to some.  That is the problem Essentials Martial classes handle well.I have never seen examples in actual play of e-classes especially overshadowing or languishing except when there was something odd done with the core build.  (Yes, Assassin|Warlock with a 4d8 Eldritch Strike at Heroic (including curse) is going to overshadow a Slayer.  That's to do with broken hybrids, not the e-Classes.)Give me actual play examples of imbalance.   Your argument appears to be one based entirely on theory that doesn't have much actual play experience behind it.</blockquote>

Verification