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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5821449" data-attributes="member: 42582">This just isn't true.The Essentials mage is no simpler than the PHB wizard. (Unless you mean because it lacks rituals. Of all the things that might make 4e complex, I've never heard rituals called out in that respect!)The Essentials druid is no simpler than the PBH2 druid - it substitutes a pet for wild shape - and is more complex than either of the PHB leaders - because it has a pet.The Essentials warlock has a complex rule for interaction of weapons and implements - more complex than anything of that sort in the PHB - and gets a pet.The Essentials rangers I think are both more complex than the PHB ranger, which is a piss-easy class to play - you just stack on the bonuses, point and shoot.The only classes in Essentials that are obviously simpler than their PHB analogues are the two fighters, with their lack of daily powers and single encounter power. The thief is probably also simpler in play than the rogue - because it brings its own combat advantage so much of the time - but arguably more complex in build, precisely because it has extra moving parts to make sure that it brings its own combat advantage.As for the general action resolution rules, they are identical to the rules published in the PHB and DMG, subject to the ongoing errata process. The DMG book and the Rules Compendium are both, in fact, almost word-for-word reprints of material from other books - DMG, DMG2 and PHB. To the extent that they have new text governing action resolution, this is clarificatory stuff that actually increases the complexity of the rules (but arguably makes adjudication in the course of play easier).TL;DR: I don't know what you're basing your characterisation of Essentials on.</blockquote>

Verification