Encounters Build

32 posts / 0 new
Last post
Hi


I am doing a compaign with my current players, which I feel is going well. But the only problem that I have is that I have a player that is using the encounters build compared to the other players using 4th edition. A problem came up at the last session that I couldn't understand the amount of hits he had per round ( which meant in some cases he was having three attacks a round doing a fair bit of damage). When I  first saw the character I didn't think it would be a problem but am not so sure now.
Can you tell me if the encounters build can work with normal 4th edition rules.

Sorry I got it wrong I meant to say D&D Essentials Build and not Encounters build.
Can you use Essentials build  character in a dungeon using 4th addition rules. 

Also can you tell me if you can have an opportunity  attack on an opportunity attack. Which he said he could cos I had an ooportunity attack on a character and because I attacked that character, he said he could do this because I attacked a character.
An attack of opportunity is when an action leaves the player open to attack. If the player is open to an attack of opportunity from an NPC their defence is down. Because the NPC is attacking they are not open to attack. Performing an attack of opportunity doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity.

In regard to the attack of opportunity situation you had, I would not have allowed it, (without more information to go by.)

I'm not sure about your encounters vs. 4th edition problem.

"He said he could" You are the DM and your rules are the official rules. Players who come from other editions need to play by the tables rules, your rules and respect those rules as well as your decisions.
Just in case I failed to mention; I am playing D&D 3.5e.
What's an "encounters build?"

Attacking does not normally provoke an attack of opportunity. Making a ranged attack with an adjacent enemy usually does, so it might have been legit if the player was adjacent to a monster that got to make ranged attacks of opportunity for some reason. 
What's an "encounters build?"

Attacking does not normally provoke an attack of opportunity. Making a ranged attack with an adjacent enemy usually does, so it might have been legit if the player was adjacent to a monster that got to make ranged attacks of opportunity for some reason. 

Hi ,

Do you mean encounters build as a essentials build??


I f that is the case then they are not meant to be played in the same game.



And no you cannot have an opportunity attack on a opportunity attack



Hope this helps         


  
Yes, Essentials builds and regular 4e characters (is there a term for that like "Essentials?") can coexist just fine in the same game.

No amount of tips, tricks, or gimmicks will ever be better than simply talking directly to your fellow players to resolve your issues.
DMs: Don't Prep the Plot | Structure First, Story Last | Prep Tips | Spoilers Don't Spoil Anything | No Myth Roleplaying
Players: 11 Ways to Be a Better Roleplayer | You Are Not Your Character     Hilarious D&D Actual Play Podcast: Crit Juice!

FREE CONTENT: Encounters With Alternate Goals  |  Full-Contact Futbol   |   Pre-Gen D&D 5e PCs  |  Re-Imagining Phandelver  |  Three Pillars of Immersion

Follow me on Twitter: @is3rith

What class, race and level is he?

If he was playing a Scout, then multiple attacks per round for big damage makes sense.  As a subclass of Ranger, it's kind of their shtick.

Scouts get Dual Weapon Attack, which triggers once per round when they hit with an MBA.  So, as long as he's hitting with an MBA on his turn, he gets at least two.  Also, it's not an "attack" per se, but once an encounter they can stack on additional damage by using Power Strike

Human scouts can crank it up a even more by picking up Throw and Stab as the extra at-will and using either a magic thrown weapon in the off hand or something like Quick Draw to get three attacks per round at will (throw, stab, dual-weapon attack)

And, by either using an action point, picking up a Ranger minor action attack encounter power with Martial Cross-Training, or grabbing a minor action theme power, any scout can add more attacks on top of that.

I was playing a scout a little while back who was doing three attacks per round at will (throw, stab, dual weapon attack), and once per encounter could stack on a minor action attack and power strike for some pretty big damage.  Plus action point...

And, yes, essentials and regular 4e characters are perfectly compatible, and one can easily mix and match powers, feats, etc. between essentials and regular.  For example, most regular 4e characters use the essentials weapon expertise feats because they are better.  I've played games where we've had regular and essentials fighting side by side, and everything turned out ok.
DM advice: 1. Do a Session Zero. 2. Start With Action. 3. Always say "Yes" to player ideas. 4. Don't build railroads. 5. Make success, failure, and middling rolls interesting. Player advice: 1. Don't be a dick. 2. Build off each other, don't block each other. 3. You're supposed to be a badass. Act like it. Take risks. My poorly updated blog: http://engineeredfun.wordpress.com/
Hi again



The character in question is playing a 16th level Half- Elven  Fighter knight  with no fighting encounter powers or daily powers only knight stances and an at-will attack, one attack he did almost 40 damage and that wasn't encluding his rolled dice and I am still trying to work out how he got it.
Hi again



The character in question is playing a 16th level Half- Elven  Fighter knight  with no fighting encounter powers or daily powers only knight stances and an at-will attack, one attack he did almost 40 damage and that wasn't encluding his rolled dice and I am still trying to work out how he got it.



Politely ask for a copy of his character sheet.  If you can't figure it out from there, there's obviously some confusion on the rules going on.
DM advice: 1. Do a Session Zero. 2. Start With Action. 3. Always say "Yes" to player ideas. 4. Don't build railroads. 5. Make success, failure, and middling rolls interesting. Player advice: 1. Don't be a dick. 2. Build off each other, don't block each other. 3. You're supposed to be a badass. Act like it. Take risks. My poorly updated blog: http://engineeredfun.wordpress.com/
Yes in essence you are right,you can play a essentials character along side a normal game,the same as you can play a 2nd or even 3rd edition character.The whole point is balance,essentials is there for an intro to d&d 4th edition,with less powers etc creating tougher characters with a simpler rule system.Playing 4th edition is an advancement to essentials creating a better gaming experience and more choices for your characters.
Yes in essence you are right,you can play a essentials character along side a normal game,the same as you can play a 2nd or even 3rd edition character.The whole point is balance,essentials is there for an intro to d&d 4th edition,with less powers etc creating tougher characters with a simpler rule system.Playing 4th edition is an advancement to essentials creating a better gaming experience and more choices for your characters.



Playing an essentials character in a 4e game is nothing like trying to shoehorn in a character from a previous edition.  Essentials and 4e are the same edition and have the same ruleset.  Classes are also pretty well-balanced between Essentials and 4e, in fact, the power difference between an essentials and 4e class is generally unnoticable in actual play.  "Regular" 4e and Essentials classes fit together so well because they were designed to.  And they were designed to fit together because they are all part of the same edition, 4e.  And it is probably much less than the power difference between individual classes in previous editions such as 3.5.

Some essentials classes are easier for beginners to pick up (while some are equally if not more complicated, such as the Mage or Berzerker), but that doesn't mean that they are only useful as an introduction for beginners, or that people should endeavour to "advance" to regular 4e.

Regarding a better gaming experience, that is a matter of personal preference.  I've had just as much fun playing an essentials scout as I've had playing a 4e bard, and it's not because I'm so new to D&D that I need a ranger for dummies.

The best thing to do is just forget that WOTC ever mentioned the word "Essentials" and pretend that both essentials and "regular" 4e classes are all part of the one big edition known as 4e.
DM advice: 1. Do a Session Zero. 2. Start With Action. 3. Always say "Yes" to player ideas. 4. Don't build railroads. 5. Make success, failure, and middling rolls interesting. Player advice: 1. Don't be a dick. 2. Build off each other, don't block each other. 3. You're supposed to be a badass. Act like it. Take risks. My poorly updated blog: http://engineeredfun.wordpress.com/
Well, 40 damage on a daily or maybe even an encounter power wouldn't be unusual for a well-built Striker at level 16. The Avenger in my current game sometimes does that much on dailies at level 11, when all his potential bonuses stack up. Not sure about doing that with an at-will, though. If he can do it every time, that seems overpowered, but maybe he had a perfect setup.
Yes and no,the whole point of wizards introducing 'essentials' was to enable begginers a much simplified introduction to 4th edition.The regular game sometimes got drawn out between encounters ,so wizards introduced more hard hitting introduction characters to speed the game up,with less abilities but enabling lower level characters to have 2 or 3 attacks per round.Which you cant have in the regular game at lower levels.Thus creating a faster gaming experience and faster character advancement through having more encounters.
Hi


He doesn't have any dailies only one at-will, the rest are feats or stances no encounter powers either.  
A character can only have one stance active at a time.And the essential build characters are the only characters that have 1 at will attack ,and then made up with utilities and stances.Wizards wouldnt be running essentials game nights in the stores if it wasnt a simplified version to 4th edition game,it would just be 4th ed nights.


As the dm in any game you have to decide what is right in your campaign,what is well balanced for the player and the party as a whole.Make a ruling which is understood by all and stick to it.As an example some dm's will not allow any essential build characters,or any item or feat out of the dragon or dungeon magazine,as they say it isn't official untill it is released in a book(because not all of them actually do).But if you run a dungeon magazine  adventure then obviously then they can have the items. 
Yes and no,the whole point of wizards introducing 'essentials' was to enable begginers a much simplified introduction to 4th edition.



I didn't disagree that some classes were easier for beginners to pick up than the original classes.  Where I disagreed with you was where you were implying that Essentials was only for beginners, and that players should seek to "advance" to "regular" 4e and that playing a Ranger instead of a Scout somehow makes for a better gaming experience (and also that mixing 4e and essentials are like mixing separate editions).

The regular game sometimes got drawn out between encounters ,so wizards introduced more hard hitting introduction characters to speed the game up,with less abilities but enabling lower level characters to have 2 or 3 attacks per round.Which you cant have in the regular game at lower levels.



Actaully, you can have multiple attacks per round at level one in 4e.  Rangers, Tempest Fighters, and Whirling Barbarians come to mind immediately, plus many controller classes have blasts, bursts, and multiple-target ranged attacks.  And that's just with at-wills, not including encounter and daily minor action attacks or triple attacks like the Ranger's Off-Hand Strike, Sohei Flurry, or the fighter's Tempest Dance, both available at level one.  And when we factor in action points, everyone can get at least two attacks per round once every other encounter.  A level one ranger with Off-Hand Strike and Sohei Flurry has the potential to do six attacks on his action point!

And, if I remember correctly, the only essentials character who can do two or three attacks per round at the outset is the Scout.

Thus creating a faster gaming experience and faster character advancement through having more encounters.



I'd like to see any evidence that players with encounters characters are significantly faster in combat, and by a margin great enough for them to get through more encounters in a night and get XP faster.  Which is also kind of moot for many players, because many DMs just level when they feel is appropriate, and many groups don't start right at level one anyways.
DM advice: 1. Do a Session Zero. 2. Start With Action. 3. Always say "Yes" to player ideas. 4. Don't build railroads. 5. Make success, failure, and middling rolls interesting. Player advice: 1. Don't be a dick. 2. Build off each other, don't block each other. 3. You're supposed to be a badass. Act like it. Take risks. My poorly updated blog: http://engineeredfun.wordpress.com/
Encounters from a dungeon are xp based ,so the more encounters you do then ultimately the more xp you get =faster levelling.Unless some dm's are running there own xp based campaign.

I would also like to see say over a 100 player stat sheet whether essential build characters having 3 attacks every round do more damage  than  regular characters.On the whole i have run both types of dungeons,and based on my experience essential characters hit harder.


Yes there are a few classes which have 2 attacks per round but normaly at a disadvantage with damage bonus,i.e a rangers twin strike can hit 2 players but with no strength bonus to damage ,and all characters have action points whether they are essentials or not.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Also can you tell me if you can have an opportunity  attack on an opportunity attack. Which he said he could cos I had an ooportunity attack on a character and because I attacked that character, he said he could do this because I attacked a character.



In response to the original poster on this question, normally, making an attack doesn't provoke an opportunity attack unless it is a ranged attack.  However, since you mentioned the character was a Knight, the Knight class has the defender aura which allows it to make an opportunity attack against anyone who makes an attack against an ally which doesn't include him.

So, if a monster is in the Knight's defender aura, and the monster attacks someone other than the knight, the knight gets an OA.
DM advice: 1. Do a Session Zero. 2. Start With Action. 3. Always say "Yes" to player ideas. 4. Don't build railroads. 5. Make success, failure, and middling rolls interesting. Player advice: 1. Don't be a dick. 2. Build off each other, don't block each other. 3. You're supposed to be a badass. Act like it. Take risks. My poorly updated blog: http://engineeredfun.wordpress.com/
Encounters from a dungeon are xp based ,so the more encounters you do then ultimately the more xp you get =faster levelling.Unless some dm's are running there own xp based campaign.



So, what's your point?  I find it hard to believe that players with essentials characters play so significantly faster that the average group is getting more encounters in per session.  It's the exact same system, the rolling and math should take the same amount of time.  I personally haven't noticed any difference in how long I take per turn between essentials and non-essentials characters.

I would also like to see say over a 100 player stat sheet whether essential build characters having 3 attacks every round do more damage  than  regular characters.On the whole i have run both types of dungeons,and based on my experience essential characters hit harder.



Actually, with one exception, no essentials character does three attacks per round at will.  They all do one, with the exception of the Scout.  A regular scout does two if he hits with an MBA (the MBA plus Dual Weapon Attack).  The only way a scout can do three attacks per round at-will is by being human, taking the extra at-will, using it to pick up Throw and Stab, and making sure that she has compatible weapons.

But wait, this involves "regular 4e" content - the human racial feature which grants the extra at-will and the Throw and Stab power are both "regular 4e" content, so according to you they wouldn't be compatible.

Of course, WOTC has a different opinion - they have stated that Essentials and 4e are perfectly compatible.  And the general consensus on the CharOp board seems to be that the Essentials and 4e classes are pretty well-balanced.  And WOTC printed feats such as Martial Cross-Training and Skald Training which allow players to mix a little bit of 4e into their essentials characters and vice versa.

So, perhaps you should refrain from posting on this issue, since you clearly have no clue what you are talking about and your posts can only serve to confuse the OP.

Yes there are a few classes which have 2 attacks per round but normaly at a disadvantage with damage bonus,i.e a rangers twin strike can hit 2 players but with no strength bonus to damage ,and all characters have action points whether they are essentials or not.



Your claim was that in "regular 4e" you can't have two attacks per round.  You didn't say anything about damage.

Also, the only class in essentials which has two attacks per round is the Scout, and it also comes with a disadvantage - if you miss with your MBA, you can't use Dual-Weapon Attack.
DM advice: 1. Do a Session Zero. 2. Start With Action. 3. Always say "Yes" to player ideas. 4. Don't build railroads. 5. Make success, failure, and middling rolls interesting. Player advice: 1. Don't be a dick. 2. Build off each other, don't block each other. 3. You're supposed to be a badass. Act like it. Take risks. My poorly updated blog: http://engineeredfun.wordpress.com/
This thread was meant to be so calcyn could ask other experienced DM's for input.Which a few people have tried to do.


This is not the place for some adolescent with power issues to be slighting other members.If you wish to do that kind of thing i suggest you sit down re -read you books,start as a player again and resort to facebook for your negative feedback and comments.



As i said before Calcyn,it is your decision,but i have found from my experience that essential build characters can unbalance a regular d&d game.   Yes regular d&d characters can utilise essential options to increase there feats,encounters or dailies to better optimise their characters,and if you do run a campaign where your players can use anything written by wizards in your game then that is your choice.



Also as i said before you cannot have an op att against an op att.


I hope this helps and i appologise for those other members who lost track of your thread.          
Also as i said before you cannot have an op att against an op att.



Rather, this doesn't always happen. But 4th edition works on the principle of general rules with specific exceptions. In this case:

However, since you mentioned the character was a Knight, the Knight class has the defender aura which allows it to make an opportunity attack against anyone who makes an attack against an ally which doesn't include him.



If this is accurate, then it would happen in response to any attack, which would include opportunity attacks. Please note that a character can only make one opportunity attack per turn, though.
 
True,but it still doesn't stack up, that a lvl 16 knight can have 3 attacks per round doing 1w +40plus damage each hit. That far exceeds any other class of character.Thats 3w + 120 plus damage per round for a fighter.Aoe or blast spells can do alot of damage but solely on the nos of mobs caught in the spell.


I suggest you check his character sheet and dont just accept his reason as i'm allowed to.

A  fighter has an ability to mark mobs ,the same as a defender aura which can be switched of with a minor action.
The original poster does not claim anywhere that the character is making three attacks per round. I just went back and reread all of his posts. Nothing about three attacks. What he says is that the build has a single at-will attack and the rest of the powers are stances. He also says that one particular attack did 40 damage, not that every attack on every turn did that much.

As i said before Calcyn,it is your decision,but i have found from my experience that essential build characters can unbalance a regular d&d game.



But this isn't what you said before. You said this:

Do you mean encounters build as a essentials build??


I f that is the case then they are not meant to be played in the same game.




And this:

Yes in essence you are right,you can play a essentials character along side a normal game,the same as you can play a 2nd or even 3rd edition character.



The claim that Essentials is as different from regular 4th edition as 3rd or 2nd edition was very naturally challenged by other posters, who you then accused of derailing the thread. It's a patently ridiculous claim, when Essentials has different character builds but still uses all the same 4th edition combat rules, which 2nd and 3rd edition do not. And the claim that Essentials was not "meant" to be used with non-Essentials is quite a bit different than saying it's DM's choice but that your experience has been it doesn't work well.
When essentials was first released it was not meant to be played with regular 4th edition.It was categorised as a seperate  intro game to 4th edition.And based on that you could play 2nd or 3 rd ed characters in the game.

Also Calcyn said  in 2 seperate replies ,"which meant in some cases he was having three attacks a round doing a fair bit of damage"..................and
                                                        " one attack he did almost 40 damage and that wasn't encluding his rolled dice"

And that is why i came to rolled dice = weapon  and therofore 3xW + 120 dam per round.
   
I accused other members of derailing the thread when they started lowering the tone of the forums with insults.

 The objective of these forums is a Q&A for members,and as far as i was aware not for insulting other people.If i am wrong and ther has been an ammendment to the rules then please show me the link.As it is always so plain and clear on these forums that the aforementioned happens all to frequently ,and derails the more important topic of the thread initialisation.
When essentials was first released it was not meant to be played with regular 4th edition.It was categorised as a seperate  intro game to 4th edition.



The impression I got at the time was that the characters and rules were supposed to be compatible, and I think that's what WotC is saying now. If you can show an official source of them saying Essentials shouldn't be combined with other 4th edition material, I'd be interested to see it.

And based on that you could play 2nd or 3 rd ed characters in the game.



Playing a 2nd edition character in a 4th edition game works just as well as playing an Essentials character? Really? Please start another thread (since it would be off-topic for this one) and explain how that would work. Because I wouldn't even know how to read a 2nd edition character sheet, and can't imagine how it could possibly fit in with a 4e game without a large set of house rules. 
Essentials = 4e D&D and the two are exactly the same game, just different classes. The two mix perfectly without any problem or changes. There is a *slight* power discrepancy in that Essential classes tend to be more powerful at 6+ encounters before an extended rest and the standard 4E classes (including the Essential wizard btw) are more powerful with 3 or less encounters per day. As long you stick to an average of 4 encouners per day there is no issue though.

As for worrying about 40 damage per hit at level 16, I don't find that number particularly impressive, especially if you consider that the knight does not have dailies. My standard fighter who is not particularly build for damage deals 1d10 + 16 damage per hit on a MBA, and had I been doing a bit more min-maxing for damage it would not take me much efford to increase it to at least a +20 base damage. Add in dailies and encounter powers and I get really close to that 40 as well.

Anyway, there is no rule that there are no opportunity attacks on oppertunity attacks. It is like taking an attack while marked by the fighter with one downside. Since the knight's aura is an opportunity attack, if that attack happens to trigger an Opportunity attack (e.g. ranged attack), there is only one and not two attacks as with the fighter's mark ;) There is a rule that you cannot make opportunity attacks or interrupts on your *own* turn.
OK,

The main diferrence between 1st, 2nd ,3rd 4th edition essentials and regular 4th edition is quite simple,they all had 1 basic attack at lower levels (apart from a few exceptions).And based on this the mechanics are the same.

And as this topic is refering to fighters that is the main difference.

And when Essentials was released it was based on a intro to 4th ed D&D ,on a come and have a quick go in a store near you promotion.A hard hitting quick encounter basis.
An excellent promo idea with its own  simplified rulebook and characters.
 
If wizards has now changed this ,maybe,as i havn't logged on for a while,it does seem feasable as they are now concentrating on the 5th edition.

But this does distract from the thread topic which is a character potentially doing 3 attacks per round doing 3W + 120 plus damage.?Plus action points.

That does seem a little unbalanced

And thankyou for the rule clarification and oulining thr main difference between essentials and 4th ed characters. 
Thoridin, Essentials has ALWAYS been designed to be part of 4e. If you don't believe it, fine.

Anyway, note that the only way the knight gets those three attacks is if the opponent ignores his aura, or in other words, if the monsters ignores the mark. If monsters do so with a regular fighter, they get clubbered a similar amount of times per round.

Now, whether or not the value of "40" in unbalanced is another discussion. Note though that the OP said almost 40, and certainly never 1W+40 per hit. If the OP wants us to judge whether or not that is according to the rules we need to see the build *including* the items. There are for example certainly a few items I keep out of my own games to keep things balanced*. For example, I am no big fan of the iron armbands ;)

* Of course, the term balance is also subjective. It usually means a situation in which all the people at the table, including the DM, is still having fun. If everybody at the table is playing the rediculous builds from CharOps than there is much less of a problem, then when only one does. In that regards, 40 damage per hit for a knight might be unbalanced for you, but if that same group includes a scout, a slayer and a sorcerer with all the right equipment and feats and all of a sudden those 40 damage pale to almost nothing ;)
The main diferrence between 1st, 2nd ,3rd 4th edition essentials and regular 4th edition is quite simple,they all had 1 basic attack at lower levels (apart from a few exceptions).And based on this the mechanics are the same.



Pretty sure this is not the only significant difference in mechanics. The need for a grid and miniatures in 4th edition comes to mind. There's also the difference in how defenses work, the existence of action points, The differences in what kind of stats monsters have and how they behave...seriously, why am I even responding to this? It's a ridiculous claim.

But this does distract from the thread topic which is a character potentially doing 3 attacks per round doing 3W + 120 plus damage



Again, the original poster never said that the Knight gets three attacks per round, and others who seem to know the Essentials system have said this is not the case. Where are you getting this idea? 
Please read read read the threads before commenting
I did, although you are right he might have excluded weapon damage:

A problem came up at the last session that I couldn't understand the amount of hits he had per round ( which meant in some cases he was having three attacks a round doing a fair bit of damage). 


The character in question is playing a 16th level Half- Elven  Fighter knight  with no fighting encounter powers or daily powers only knight stances and an at-will attack, one attack he did almost 40 damage and that wasn't encluding his rolled dice and I am still trying to work out how he got it.



But in all honesty, was it 40 damage for all attacks? All three together? Is the rolled dice the weapon damage? Did he roll a critical and did that need to include the critical dice? The fact is that the OP has been rather vague in this regards. There is no way, we can judge wether or not the mentioned build is not by the RAW or particularly powerful.

(Quickly added a level 16 knight together that dealt +27 damage for a MBA in the right stance with a +4 weapon and armbands of power for paragon level and the feat that gives +2 to damage. Note that there is a fighter feat that allows the Knight to add the Wisdom modifier to damage on opportunity attacks. That would raise the damage to +32 if he really went for it. I am sure others could get it up quickly this is just something I build in less than a minute.)
Regarding the OP, we need more information if we are to tell you whether this is kosher or not.  We'd need to see his character sheet and how the heck he was having three attacks per round.  Were they OAs?  He can't do three attacks on his turn, so the only possibility is if you weren't aware of the effects of his defender aura and were provoking OAs from him like there's no tomorrow.

Thoridin, I didn't suggest you stop posting in this thread because I am "some adolescent with power issues" (for the record, I'm definitely too old to be an adolescent) and wanted to insult you; I suggested it because you were posting a lot of stuff that was factually incorrect and which had the potential to confuse the OP, who seems to be relatively new to D&D.

OK,

The main diferrence between 1st, 2nd ,3rd 4th edition essentials and regular 4th edition is quite simple,they all had 1 basic attack at lower levels (apart from a few exceptions).And based on this the mechanics are the same.



Can you help me find THAC0 on my 4e Scout's character sheet?

Also, what is the Basic Attack for my Essentials Mage?

And as this topic is refering to fighters that is the main difference.

And when Essentials was released it was based on a intro to 4th ed D&D ,on a come and have a quick go in a store near you promotion.A hard hitting quick encounter basis.
An excellent promo idea with its own  simplified rulebook and characters.
 
If wizards has now changed this ,maybe,as i havn't logged on for a while,it does seem feasable as they are now concentrating on the 5th edition.

But this does distract from the thread topic which is a character potentially doing 3 attacks per round doing 3W + 120 plus damage.?Plus action points.

That does seem a little unbalanced

And thankyou for the rule clarification and oulining thr main difference between essentials and 4th ed characters. 



My recollection was that Wizards was saying that Essentials and "regular" 4e were compatible right from the start.  And if it was meant solely as an intro, why on earth did Wizards print options for these classes all the way up to level 30?  Encounters only goes up to level 3, and anyone who needs an intro to D&D should be playing in heroic tier.
DM advice: 1. Do a Session Zero. 2. Start With Action. 3. Always say "Yes" to player ideas. 4. Don't build railroads. 5. Make success, failure, and middling rolls interesting. Player advice: 1. Don't be a dick. 2. Build off each other, don't block each other. 3. You're supposed to be a badass. Act like it. Take risks. My poorly updated blog: http://engineeredfun.wordpress.com/
It sounds like "Essentials" is being confused with "Encounters" again.

[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy