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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="BobTheNob" data-source="post: 5585621" data-attributes="member: 82425">IMO essentials rocks. To me essentials feels like how they should have designed 4e if they had the gift of hindsight when first conceiving.As to he whole "not as interesting" argument...go ask our parties hunter, who had to get a creature off a gate mechanism it was destroying, so he clever shotted it off then immobilized it so it couldnt get back to it. Yes, the hunter doesnt have a gazillion powers to choose from, but it you are good at playing characters at run time, you dont need them.Ask our Slayer, who charged with accuracy stance active, used power strike and pushed away opposition, and the cool thing was that was like an encounter power which he put together on the fly, rather than  "One he prepared earlier".I actually think essentials classes are cool because, when played well, they dont NEED lots of encounter powers to choose from at design time. They are like a meal which you prepare 5 seconds before eating, rather than one you prepare one day and eat the next.Yes, Im sure you can create PHB1&2 classes which will put essentials to shame. What that proves is that they have had more source material to draw from, not that they are better, and the whole AEDU "lets try to bring all classes under one mechanic" bit...I prefer the distinguishment between classes that essentials brings. By epic, our PHB1 characters really all felt the same, the only difference was some had implements where other had weapons, which was really deflating after 2.5 years of investment in them.Everyone is entitled to their own position, but personally, complete essentials convert here.</blockquote>

Verification