Which Essentials class do you like the most?

[MortalPlague]

In my current game, two of five PCs are playing essentials classes. We have an executioner, who is very effective, and a blackguard, likewise very effective.

The player who has the executioner complains that he gets no dailies and fewer encounter powers than everyone else. Then we point out that all his poisons are daily powers, and that he puts out tons of damage, and he shuts up.

The guy who plays the wizard is incredulous at the amount of damage the blackguard dishes out. And it's true; our blackguard has tremendous burst damage. But once he's used up his big stuff, then his damage drops off quite a bit.

Overall though, it's been harmonious having two essentials classes fighting alongside three regular classes.

 

[Quickleaf]

I just played a knight for the first time yesterday. It was awesome! The knight is an opportunity attack fiend! Absolutely loved it, and every player was impressed by my contribution to the butt-kicking.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I just played a knight for the first time yesterday. It was awesome! The knight is an opportunity attack fiend! Absolutely loved it, and every player was impressed by my contribution to the butt-kicking.

That aspect of the class is heavily dependent on your DM's style. There are DMs out there (like Aegeri, I think it was), who delight in evading your defender aura and rendering your Knight irrellevant. I think it's mean-spirited, it's not /hard/ to play just 'dumb' enough for the Knight to shine, and the intent of the Knight is to be easier to play. When you sit down to play checkers, you don't expect a chess master across the table from you.

 

[Quickleaf]

That aspect of the class is heavily dependent on your DM's style. There are DMs out there (like Aegeri, I think it was), who delight in evading your defender aura and rendering your Knight irrellevant. I think it's mean-spirited, it's not /hard/ to play just 'dumb' enough for the Knight to shine, and the intent of the Knight is to be easier to play. When you sit down to play checkers, you don't expect a chess master across the table from you.

Yeah it's more dependent on the DM's style than other classes, but if the DM wants to screw any particular class or role, well then the DM has the power and tools to do that.

Once a monster *is* adjacent to a knight, however, the range of options for avoiding punishment is pretty narrow. And if they opt to attack the knight, then purposes served.

 

[BobTheNob]

Yeah it's more dependent on the DM's style than other classes, but if the DM wants to screw any particular class or role, well then the DM has the power and tools to do that.

Yes, the power and the tools indeed. But should they?

I always view the DM as the "entertainer", he is the guy with the greatest responsibility to ensure that the players have a great time. We had a change of GM recently and the first thing the new GM did was put in monsters (of his own creation) which were super hard to kill and seemed capable of countering everything the party did.

Now said DM understood the rules real well and he use that knowledge to trump the party. I sat him down and (in my most diplomatic tone) pointed out that trumping everything the party does simply isnt fun for anyone. You have to let the players enjoy what their characters do. Sure, you can rock the boat from time to time, but you have to let people enjoy their characters.

Its not a great thing when a DM uses there position to neutralize character capabilities time and again, and finding ways to beat tank marks(or aura e.t.c.) time and again just ends up making playing tanks irrelevant and boring.

 

[Rechan]

Now said DM understood the rules real well and he use that knowledge to trump the party. I sat him down and (in my most diplomatic tone) pointed out that trumping everything the party does simply isnt fun for anyone. You have to let the players enjoy what their characters do. Sure, you can rock the boat from time to time, but you have to let people enjoy their characters..

Once read this on here, and I know some will disagree, but I believe:

The DM's job is to let the players win without letting them know it.

You're supposed to challenge them, make them sweat, make them work a little, but the goal is for them to triumph. Make it too easy and they get bored, there's no challenge or risk. Make it too hard, and it's pointless.

 

[vagabundo]

Once read this on here, and I know some will disagree, but I believe:

The DM's job is to let the players win without letting them know it.

You're supposed to challenge them, make them sweat, make them work a little, but the goal is for them to triumph. Make it too easy and they get bored, there's no challenge or risk. Make it too hard, and it's pointless.

I'd agree with the caveat: it is okay for them to lose sometimes too, but it must be rare. Most groups won't like getting their ass handed to them every week.

In my current SWSE game, there was a biker gang that really pounded the group, a combination of tough opponents, bad choices by the group and poor rolls. None of the character died as they surrendered, but the gang really fleeced them. They eventually got their revenge, but they still remember and it seems to sting. lol.

And some of our previous TPKs bring back fond memories, usually because they well and truly fupped up.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Before you post to this thread I'd first like to ask that you engage in some reading comprehension. This thread isn't asking whether or not you like Essentials classes. This thread isn't asking you how much you hate Essentials classes. This thread isn't about how Essentials ruined 4e.

So please, read the thread title and respond to the actual topic.

Now that the nasty business is out of the way, I'll start proceedings. I freaking LOVE the Essentials Mage. For me, the original Wizard just didn't hit the mark. But the Essentials Mage is pretty much everything I could want from a Wizard/Mage class. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it's currently my favourite class in the entire game. About the only criticism of it I have is that I'd like to see more specialist keywords in spells.

How about you?

I favor the complexity of the "Core" classes, but the Mage still works for me.

I also like the Poisoner Essentials variant of the Assassin, though I think I still prefer the shadow-jumping Assassin as a player.

The basic-attack + power strike classes are not for me, but they aren't designed for me either. So while I personally wouldn't like to play them very much, I see why they might be good for the game, and I still like them for the fact that they managed to create "power-less" classes and make them work within 4E.

 

[Rechan]

I sat down and looked at the Cavalier/Blackguard. Man, the Cavalier feels like a paladin. While I dislike that you don't get any dailies til level 5, this class feels awesome. The Blackguard's AWs don't inspire awesomeness to me, and again the daily issue. Otherwise, again awesome.

 

[Subtlepanic]

Another vote here for the Hunter. It's a very elegent design, and for new players it's very easy to grasp, yet versatile in play.