Page 803 - Essentially Dubious

For those who don’t know, the Essentials versions of certain 4e classes are simplified, reconfigured variants for newer players or players looking for a simpler, more classic approach to the classes on offer. The simplification gets panned first for removing options and continuing to dumb things down for D&D’s widening audience at the time. Honestly, in my opinion, you can make a case for any of them from a new player, roleplaying, or flavor standpoint.

The more long-term criticism that’s managed to stick is that just about all the Essentials classes are not very good at their player roles - Leader, Striker, Controller, etc. - to the point of having relatively little to contribute to combat. Depending on who you ask, not only are some of the Essentials classes underpowered, but so far below par that they’re almost dead weight.

I’ve played a few Essentials characters, and some of them seem pretty bad. But overall I’ve had mixed results.

EDIT: Count on the comments section to generate some strong counterarguments, though!

Twilight Sparkle: So… do we have to make the exact same characters as before? Or can we change things up a little?
DM: Considering the circumstances, you can change just about all of your powers if you want. Or subclasses, even, if you want to get out of the Essentials handbooks. For instance, Fluttershy could switch from a Druid (Sentinel) to the original Druid or the (Protector).
Applejack: Though Sentinel’s the one that focuses on the animal companion.
Fluttershy: I think I’ll stay with that, then. If that’s alright, I mean. I don’t want to be a burden.
Rainbow Dash: That brings up something I’ve wanted to ask from the start. Why the heck has Rarity been a Rogue (Thief) this whole time?! It’s not like this is your first campaign!
Rarity: Oh, you know I’m not a min-maxer. Unless the “min” happens to be “combat” and the “max” is “roleplaying.”