Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Magil" data-source="post: 6020003" data-attributes="member: 6672353">I'm largely in agreement. I'm a big fan of 4th edition but I wasn't offended by Essentials, as I saw a number of people were. My experience has been that most of the classes are at least competitive with their predecessors from a balance standpoint--removing daily powers from certain fighter and rogue builds didn't drop their power significantly enough such that they could no longer compete (which is in fact one of the primary reasons I'm not calling for something similar on DnD Next martial classes). I don't think the knight is quite as good at defending as the PHB fighter, and I don't think the thief is quite as good at being a striker as a PHB rogue (and gives up most of the secondary controller role), but they perform well enough. There were some gaffs, but I don't think it was for the martial classes (the cavalier, and the poor binder). And personally I loved the mage and the return of school specializations, which I felt were handled very well in 4E, though they really didn't need to continue printing new wizard build after new wizard build after that.Still, I don't think I'd like to play an essentials-only game either. I liked playing a Slayer in a very short campaign, but I think if I tried to play it from levels 1-30 I'd get bored.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Magil, post: 6020003, member: 6672353"] I'm largely in agreement. I'm a big fan of 4th edition but I wasn't offended by Essentials, as I saw a number of people were. My experience has been that [i]most[/i] of the classes are at least competitive with their predecessors from a balance standpoint--removing daily powers from certain fighter and rogue builds didn't drop their power significantly enough such that they could no longer compete (which is in fact one of the primary reasons I'm not calling for something similar on DnD Next martial classes). I don't think the knight is [i]quite[/i] as good at defending as the PHB fighter, and I don't think the thief is [i]quite[/i] as good at being a striker as a PHB rogue (and gives up most of the secondary controller role), but they perform well enough. There were some gaffs, but I don't think it was for the martial classes (the cavalier, and the poor binder). And personally I loved the mage and the return of school specializations, which I felt were handled very well in 4E, though they really didn't need to continue printing new wizard build after new wizard build after that. Still, I don't think I'd like to play an essentials-only game either. I liked playing a Slayer in a very short campaign, but I think if I tried to play it from levels 1-30 I'd get bored. [/QUOTE]

Verification