What other Essentialized classes do you want?

[AntlerDruid]

Psion - Precog/Seer

Monk - Soulknife

 

[Garthanos]

I'd ideally like Bladesinger to just be a build of Swordmage with Charisma as a secondary stat, but it's looking like that's unlikely.

I predict it will use basic attacks which will be augmented by lesser enchantments (operating much like the fighter stances). They could do wicked things like allow you to at higher levels maintain more than one such enchantment at a time... either stacking them or maintaining them on an allies blade.... any way there are some intriguing possibilities. Be open to something exciting it could happen.

 

[TarionzCousin]

Paladin striker. Something along the lines of the slayer. Heavy armor, big weapon, really tough and Lots of smiting.

Replace the stances with divine aura's, the encounter strike with smite evil. Use wis or cha for bonus damage. Throw in a few other classic paladinly abilities and I think we've got ourselves a winner.

Holy Ouch, Batman! I think that would be unbalanced compared to everything else... and awesome!

 

[ourchair]

First of all, 4th edition is a working system, and there is no need to rush to "completely essentialize" it. There is no class that desperately needs a rewrite, except for the Assassin but that one is done.

I agree, though I don't think that "essentializing" necessarily means a class is being rewritten so much as it is getting a new iteration. Otherwise we'd be suggesting that Essential classes make original classes somehow obsolete, a notion I don't agree with.

 

[Mengu]

I don't want to see any other classes essentialized past the Essentials product line. Some elements can be used in new classes/builds, such as at-will movement powers or stance power approach that was used for the thief and knight/slayer. But I want to see a continuation of the at-will/encounter/daily power progression. Pre-essentials, I would have new players afraid of playing a cleric or wizard, because they didn't know how, they were just used to playing fighters. In 4e, when they played a fighter, they learned how every single character in the game worked, and became brave enough to try a warlock, or an invoker.

Despite all the harping on simplicity for introduction level, the original approach was much simpler for me to teach in a demo. Essentials feels to me like it's for the 2e/3e hard cores who didn't like 4e. If some of those fellas can be roped in with this approach, great, but I'd prefer either going back to the pre-essentials format, or evolving essentials into something a little more uniform, just borrowing some of the better elements from it.

 

[josha]

I want...
Hellscourge Invoker (Divine Striker)
Zealot Paladin (Divine Striker)
Minstrel Bard (Martial/Arcane Leader)
Marshal Warlord (Martial Leader)
Arcane Commander Warlord (Martial/Arcane Controller)
Spellthief Rogue (Arcane/Martial Striker)
Soulknife Monk (Psionic Striker)
Martial Artist Monk (Martial Striker)
Adept Sorcerer (Arcane Controller)
Darkslayer Avenger (Divine/Shadow Striker)

And perhaps a Leader build for the Paladin that plays like the Warlord.

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

Warlord - Leader (Need another non-divine leader)
Psion - Controller

Once I have those two, I'm ready to run Essentials only Dark Sun

 

[KidSnide]

What I would like to see is enough of the simplified Essentials classes that I could fill up a six-person con-style party with characters that the players could use effectively after looking at them for just a minute or two.

I think the knight, slayer and thief subclasses fit this low-complexity requirement. I'd like to see enough other low-complexity subclasses that I could build a party. A simplified sorcerer makes a lot of sense to me. A less fiddly warlord build could also be a good idea. It's hard to know exactly what we need until we've seen both heroes books. But - in general - I see the "easier to play" essentials builds to be a filling in an important niche.

Of course, I also like the idea of providing wizard builds that focus on a type of magic (instead of the shape of the wizard's magic stick -- why did that make sense?), but that's more about improving the existing 4e classes than it is adding a less complicated way of playing with the system.

-KS

 

[Azlith]

Keep in mind that the problem with essentializing older classes is that most of them were strikers because they all pretty much concentrated on damage. Also, I only listed the ones that I could think of from 2nd and 1st ed, because that's what essentials is all about.

Monk/Mystic - Psionic Striker (should probably be a divine striker)
Bard/Minstrel - Arcane Defender(striker)
Rogue/Acrobat - Martial Striker
Warlord/Cavalier - Martial Defender
Barbarian/Rager - Primal Striker
Paladin/Samurai - Divine Melee Striker
Warlord/Bushi - Martial Striker
Cleric/Shugenja - Divine Controller
Wizard/WuJen - Arcane Striker
Rogue/Ninja - Martial Striker
Fighter/Kensai - Martial Striker
Rogue/Yakuza - Martial Leader

 

[FabioMilitoPagliara]

thinking back to the essential fighter/magic-user.....

what about stances as a slayer + chain mail + mage encounters + utility from both mage and knight

now the hard part what to take off the slayer improvements (no power attack to start off, and I would say less stances) and what to give as addittionals mages power

at-will attacks?
cantrips?
dailies attacks?

also it goes nicely with the dex/int of (essentials) elf and eladrins

obviously martial-arcane