Red Box vs. Essentials vs. PHB

[cavalier973]

I've been playing the Red Box adventure with my kids (ages 8, 5, and 3; they love, it, I love it, it's lots of fun and it keeps them from burning their eyes out watching TV), and comparing the rules with what I read from HotFL and the PHB. I was under the impression that the Red Box powers would be duplicated in HotFL, but I was mistaken. There are several powers in the RB that kick tail, but aren't in the HotFL ("Slimy Transmutation" comes to mind, but there are others).

I like the Red Box thief a lot, especially the at-will "trick" to shift two squares around an enemy. The PHB doesn't have something similar to this, from what I'm reading. The HotFL does have a similar power, where the thief can shift two squares, attack, then shift two more square and then do a Stealth Check. The HotFL does not have the RB thief trick "Defensive Strike", which gives the thief a +1 bonus to all defenses until the end of the next turn, a useful trick, and one that I'm curious was not included in HotFL.

From what I can tell, the RB fighter(slayer)'s powers are all included in HotFL. I will take the time here to declare my preference for the Essentials fighter over the PHB fighter, because of the Essential's simplicity. One doesn't get the interesting range of options that a PHB fighter gets, but there is enough variety, I think, to still make an E-Fighter fun to play, and the E-fighter's powers make more sense in terms of gameplay. But then, I haven't really played the PHB fighter, so perhaps it's not a fair comparison.

The HotFL Warpriest (and RB version) seem to me superior to the PHB cleric in one sense, as he (the Warpriest) uses his Wisdom modifier for attack rolls, while the PHB uses strength. On the other hand, the PHB allows for missile attacks as well as melee, while the Warpriest seems to be exclusively melee (he can use a sling, sure, but only to make basic attacks with Dex modifier). The Warpriest also gets "Resurrection" at level 8, which means the Warpriest doesn't need to gather ritual components, but I assume that the PHB cleric could snag this prayer as well, once reaching level 8, based on feats selection, etc. I've noticed that the "Brand of the Burning Sun" at-will prayer is different in RB and HotFL; in RB it grants allies +2 temporary hit points; in HotFL it allows allies to make a saving throw.

The PHB wizard seems to be clearly superior to the HotFL/RB mage, because of flexibility, the free ritual casting feat, getting all cantrips (instead of picking 3--that really bugs me for some reason), better "control" at-will spells (I'm thinking "Cloud of Daggers", then "Thunderwaving" enemies into the cloud). The RB mage has one superior spell--"Slimy Transmutation"--but I'm pretty sure that a PHB mage could pick this one up in place of "Sleep" or whatever. Because "Slimy Transmutation" is cool. A 1st level wizard could turn Orcus into a toad, even if he misses. Assuming, of course, that he lucks out on initiative.

 

[DracoSuave]

The Warpriest also gets "Resurrection" at level 8, which means the Warpriest doesn't need to gather ritual components, but I assume that the PHB cleric could snag this prayer as well, once reaching level 8, based on feats selection, etc.

Not currently, but there'll be a book that bridges the two and allows warpriest stuff to be taken by the cleric and vice versa.

Clerics can't currently take Ressurection because it is a utility power without a level. If it had a level (say, 8) then a cleric could legally take it as his level 10 utility power.

The PHB wizard seems to be clearly superior to the HotFL/RB mage, because of flexibility, the free ritual casting feat, getting all cantrips (instead of picking 3--that really bugs me for some reason), better "control" at-will spells (I'm thinking "Cloud of Daggers", then "Thunderwaving" enemies into the cloud). The RB mage has one superior spell--"Slimy Transmutation"--but I'm pretty sure that a PHB mage could pick this one up in place of "Sleep" or whatever. Because "Slimy Transmutation" is cool. A 1st level wizard could turn Orcus into a toad, even if he misses. Assuming, of course, that he lucks out on initiative.

1) The essentials wizard can take PHB wizard at-wills. Any time you choose from a list of powers with a level, in essentials, you are allowed to take a power from the base class's list as well. On top of that, the PHB wizard has access to the essential wizard's lists. The essentials wizard does get their specialty school bonuses tho, and I think I prefer them to Implement Mastery.

Either way tho, the new ____ Expertise feats are a great addition to the wizard repertoire. Suddenly, wands don't suck.

 

[Peraion Graufalke]

In case you didn't know, there's an official conversion document for transferring Red Box characters to HoFL that might be helpful. Some powers have changed, notably Magic Missile and Brand of the Burning Sun (which you have pointed out in the OP).

As for Defensive Strike, a PHB rogue can choose to take it even if it doesn't really work with the HoFL thief. I don't see a problem with letting a HoFL thief take Red Box rogue utilities instead of the ones in HoFL, however.

Regarding the Red Box/HoFL slayer, he's a striker instead of the PHB fighter (defender), so he requires less tactics and is thus easier to play IMO. If you have a knack for tactics, the PHB fighter is just awesome (see Come and Get It, for example). That said, I think I'd have fun playing a slayer regardless of its perceived simplicity in play. He could use some additional weapon masteries however, e.g. hammer/mace, pick, and flail.

 

[cavalier973]

Thanks for the link to the conversion doc. Of course, I was up until after 3:00 a.m. last night completely rebuilding the classes using the HotFL book for the game I play with my kids (I made my own power cards using 3X5 index cards).

But I ran into a question about the "Two Weapon Fighting" feat. From the PHB, I remembered that a character can wield a weapon in each hand, but unless he is a Ranger, he can only attack with one weapon each turn. However, the HotFL description of the TWF feat seems to indicate that the character can attack with both weapons simultaneously. I've searched through the errata and made some web searches besides to get confirmation of this, but cannot find a clear answer.
If a "specialised" (20 DEX) thief with the Two Weapon Fighter feat can attack with both weapons at the same time, and he is wielding a shortsword in each hand, he would be dealing 2d6 + 16 damage, plus another 2d6 if he can Sneak Attack, plus another 1d6 if he uses Backstab, for a potential damage output of up to 46 points. It seems quite a bit for a first level character, but maybe that's the goal.

 

[Jack99]

Essential Two Weapon Fighting

Two-Weapon Fighting

Prerequisite: Dexterity 13
Benefit: While wielding a melee weapon in each hand, you gain a +1 bonus to the damage rolls of weapon attacks that you make with a melee weapon.

I do not see how you get that you can attack with both weapons? Or did I misunderstand your question?

 

[cavalier973]

Essential Two Weapon Fighting

I do not see how you get that you can attack with both weapons? Or did I misunderstand your question?

On p. 319:

"Two-Weapon Fighting: Your two weapons form a deadly combination. You slash and stab with both in unison, delivering punishing strikes as you press the attack."

Then it states the requirement and the benefit, which is what you quoted. So it sounds to me like you use both weapons at the same time, but the benefit clause of the feat description is vague.

 

[Jack99]

On p. 319:

"Two-Weapon Fighting: Your two weapons form a deadly combination. You slash and stab with both in unison, delivering punishing strikes as you press the attack."

Then it states the requirement and the benefit, which is what you quoted. So it sounds to me like you use both weapons at the same time, but the benefit clause of the feat description is vague.

Its just fluff. Its funny, I just saw an interview with some of the designers, and you would almost think that they had read your posts - they were talking about people who were reading way too much into the fluff. Incidentally, this was one of the reasons it was removed (with regards to crunch) at first, when 4e came out.

As for the feat itself, it is not at all vague - IMO. When wielding two weapons, you get +1 to damage with any attack you make, no matter which melee weapon you are using. Where is the vague part?

 

[Shin Okada]

In 4e, unless you are using a power which enables to do that, you cannot actually make two or more attacks even if you are wielding two weapons.

Actually, whether if you are a ranger or not is irrelevant. It is just that there are a lot of such powers for Ranger class. In fact, you can make a ranger who don't have such a power at all.

Benefit: While wielding a melee weapon in each hand, you gain a +1 bonus to the damage rolls of weapon attacks that you make with a melee weapon.

This is the benefit of this (revised) feat. As long as you are "wielding" a melee weapon in each hand, you gain +1 bonus to damage rolls, regardless of if you uses a power which allows you to make one each (or more) of attacks using both weapons or not.

So assume you are a rogue and wielding two daggers and has this feat. You may not likely to have no power which allows you to make an attack with your primary dagger and another attack with your secondary dagger. But still, you gain a +1 bonus to the damage rolls when making an attack with a melee weapon (either of your daggers).

 

[cavalier973]

Its just fluff. Its funny, I just saw an interview with some of the designers, and you would almost think that they had read your posts - they were talking about people who were reading way too much into the fluff. Incidentally, this was one of the reasons it was removed (with regards to crunch) at first, when 4e came out.

As for the feat itself, it is not at all vague - IMO. When wielding two weapons, you get +1 to damage with any attack you make, no matter which melee weapon you are using. Where is the vague part?

The vague part was in combination with the fluff; that was my real question--does the part above the "Benefit Clause", the part where it says you attack with both weapons in unison, count? Apparently not, unfortunately; except...I'M the freakin' DM, and I say "fluff counts"!

 

[evilbob]

does the part above the "Benefit Clause", the part where it says you attack with both weapons in unison, count?

Technically no, but...

I'M the freakin' DM, and I say "fluff counts"!

Lol - in that case I'd say you have it figured out just fine.

Yeah, there was certainly some debate on these boards about the "bait and switch"-iness of the Red Box vs. everything else that's being published now, especially since the Red Box is billed as an intro into other material (it isn't, really). The company that makes D&D now (Wizards of the Coast, aka WotC) has notoriously poor editing standards but in this case they seem to have just shoved the Red Box out the door before lots of final changes.