Community

But really.. the who point of essentials is to REDUCE the number of choices to make.

Agreed. Each of the simple E-classes has a non-E version with as many options as ever to choose from. I actually appreciate the elementalist build because it actually answered my big big complaint of Essentials, that they'd only simplefied the martial classes and I would have liked to see similar encounter-only options for arcane and divine types a lot sooner than we did (my favorite PC's concept was a wizard who got started later in life than most and so, while terrible at rituals and big daily effects, was quite adept with the simpler at-will and encounter spells... so an at-will/encounter only arcane controller would have been right up my alley).

I've found the Essential classes most useful at small tables (2-3 players) where one or more people need to play an extra character just to get all the roles covered. Using a Knight, Slayer, Hunter or Skald (using only powers from Feywild) to fill the empty Defender, Striker, Controller, or Leader slot means that extra character's turn is quick and easy to resolve (usually just move, make some variety of basic attack and then add an extra effect if you hit).

May 2, 2012 -- 8:01AM, lokiare wrote:

From what I've heard Essentials is pretty fun for about the first 3-5 levels, but then you get tired of your limited options "with something else thrown on"...

It depends on the class and build.  Some of the warpriest buildss can be interesting for a long time.  And the warpriest builds that aren't that interesting still have encounter powers and can swap them out if they need to through feats.  Plus they get the full range of cleric dailies and utilties.  The wizard builds are about the same as the arcanist in how interesting they is.

And the berserker can easily be as interesting as the barbarian if you count it as essentials.

For the fighter, paladin, rogue, sorcerer, etc., you are right.  I would not play them for more than a one shot or mini campaign.  But I know some people who like that sort of character a lot and if you give them too many options either ignore them or spend too much time trying to figure out each round what they should do.  There was one guy I played with who always stuggled even with pre E strikers (who are fairly simple most of the time), but did great when we convinced him to play a slayer.

May 2, 2012 -- 8:01AM, lokiare wrote:

From what I've heard Essentials is pretty fun for about the first 3-5 levels, but then you get tired of your limited options "with something else thrown on"...

It depends on the player, a close friend of mine that I've played D&D with since high school loves the essentials classes of Slayer and Thief.  He's used to 2nd edition.  He makes his character at the beginning of the game and doesn't really want to have to weigh options of which is best because he feels it gets in the way of the real game of us playing.  He has yet to get bored of his level 16 thief.  

I personally would get bored with it, and while I really didn't like essentials at first becaue of missing hybrid and multiclass rules, and that powers didn't have levels so they weren't swappable, it has grown on me as a great way to get "old school" players into my game.

I actually think that WotC saw that as a success, but not to the level they want (and unfortunately to far into the edition for it to take hold.).  Had things like Rarity and essentials classes been part of the initial roll out it may have gone over better (and I have heard others say things to the same effect on this board as well).  

 

May 3, 2012 -- 9:26PM, obryn wrote:

I'm expecting any remaining ones to be quality, too.

Based on the last few previews, I'm expect the remaining 4e products to be utter garbage.