Which Essentials class do you like the most?

[Droogie128]

Another vote for the Knight.

Funny, listening to Armored Saint right now. Love John Bush now that he's back with them.

Sorry for the off topic post, but it's good to see that name.

 

[john112364]

I currently play a bladesinger... does its job of controlling well enough. And is a blast to play!

I agree with this. The bladesinger is a great single person controller. And when Bladesong is active they can do striker type damage especially when you use your dailies with it (and the MBAs that follow). I'm having a blast with my bladesinger as well.

 

[cavalier973]

The Knight really allows me to build a concept character without too much punishment: a scholar=warrior that uses his high INT to fight instead of being a brute STR fighter.

The only class I've actually played was a Warpriest, and had a blast, even though playing a cleric was not my first choice. I dropped the daily "Nimbus of Holy Shielding" on my first turn, thus preventing several teammates from being hit, pulled the dragonborn paladin from the brink of death, and took out one of the jelly monsters. Good times.

 

[Larrin]

Having played both Axe scouts and Sword Scouts, I like them both, but the accuracy of the sword scout is really good....out of ~12 encounters I only missed three times total. The mobility and flexibility given by aspects makes him a tactical mover but a simple striker. If he can hit you, he will kill you, and then he'll probably shift away from the surviving monsters leaving them no chance to hurt him.

 

[Randomthoughts]

I've played the Thief at GenCon and much prefer this version than the original 4e Rogue. Much easier to get CA and less dependent on coordinating attacks with the party (which is fun in a local group but hit-and-miss at a Con).

I've seen the Slayer in action, and they work exactly as described above: a straightforward Striker with good, consistent damage. I played an adventure with a player who liked the Slayer exactly for the reasons described by Gort. I also made a Slayer for a new player interested in trying 4e for the first time - for the very same reasons.

 

[Gort]

I've seen the Slayer in action, and they work exactly as described above: a straightforward Striker with good, consistent damage. I played an adventure with a player who liked the Slayer exactly for the reasons described by Gort. I also made a Slayer for a new player interested in trying 4e for the first time - for the very same reasons.

They're also one of the few classes I feel okay about running without making power cards for - just a couple of pebbles or coins to track Power Strike usage and you're pretty much good to go.

 

[Tony Vargas]

IMX, the Slayer is good for one thing: Introducing old-school AD&Ders to the game. When you talk him into trying 4e, he'll almost always go "I'll start with a Fighter, just to get a feel for it..." Because, back in the day, fighter's were simple and gave you a feel for the combat system. Give him a 4e Fighter, and he thinks the game is insane - his 'fighter' is 'casting spells.' Give him a Slayer, and it feels like a fighter, but eases him into the idea of powers, and lets him see how combat works. Then he'll move on to a 'real' (caster) class.

 

[Dausuul]

Love the executioner. I'm going to finally get a chance to play a character shortly, and that's what I'll likely go with... though I might try hexblade or mage. So many tempting possibilities.

 

[fletch137]

I don't care much for the hexblade. That may sound like the complete opposite of what you were asking, but please interpret that to mean I like all the other ones. A lot.

But if I had to pick just one, I'd have to go with the knight. While it may seem simple to the read, I love the way it plays. It has just as much strategizing as other classes, but directs that strategic thought to the individual encounters rather than pre-game power selection.