Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="James Gasik" data-source="post: 9225565" data-attributes="member: 6877472">Slayer, Knight, the Essentials Rangers, and the horrible Binder Warlock were things I noted that had issues right away.&nbsp; The Slayer is amazing in 1-10 play, especially with aberrations like the Dexterity Slayer.&nbsp; But beyond that...you got very minor buffs to their Encounter power.The Knight had amazing stickiness, but lacked the control elements the base Fighter could bring to the table, nor could they mark at a distance.The Rangers...well maybe the Scout was ok.&nbsp; But the &quot;controller Ranger&quot; (I can't recall it's title) had one good trick, a big volley attack and that was basically it.&nbsp; Basically, they were ill-suited for the changing battlefields of high level play.&nbsp; Then of course, you had the Essentials Cleric and Wizard, that were pretty much the same as their PHB counterparts, and benefited from all the support those classes already had.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="James Gasik, post: 9225565, member: 6877472"] Slayer, Knight, the Essentials Rangers, and the horrible Binder Warlock were things I noted that had issues right away. The Slayer is amazing in 1-10 play, especially with aberrations like the Dexterity Slayer. But beyond that...you got very minor buffs to their Encounter power. The Knight had amazing stickiness, but lacked the control elements the base Fighter could bring to the table, nor could they mark at a distance. The Rangers...well maybe the Scout was ok. But the "controller Ranger" (I can't recall it's title) had one good trick, a big volley attack and that was basically it. Basically, they were ill-suited for the changing battlefields of high level play. Then of course, you had the Essentials Cleric and Wizard, that were pretty much the same as their PHB counterparts, and benefited from all the support those classes already had. [/QUOTE]

Verification