Thoughts on the New Druid Hero?

[Kurgan]

Good idea, especially if Wormtongue is around, because after all, his very words are poison! Sorry, that popped into my head for some reason...

[Daedalus]

Bard play test has wording in it that makes it seem as if they have decided that shields are not metal. Guess the druid can use shields according to this lodgic.

Good point about Bard Shield use. Apart from this, the new Equipment cards are likely to contain the same text as the original Armory. In that case, only Chain Mail and Plate Mail are described as metal armor. Text trumps pics for rules.

Since rereading this thread, I've noticed that the Rust spell affects a Helmet (or any sword) but not a Shield. That confirms that a Shield isn't considered metal armor. Good call, Doug Hopkins.

More evidence explaining the Shield wording of the Druid card ("A Druid hero may not wear metal armor.") can be found in the pertinent equipment descriptions of the Armory. " . . . May not be worn by the Wizard." -- Chain Mail, Plate Mail, Helmet, (metal armor), as differentiated from ". . . May not be used by the Wizard." --Shield (non-metal armor).

[Kurgan]

Personally I thought that was just a way to reduce its power... to prevent Rust from being OP. If it destroyed ANYTHING metal, then it would destroy chain mail, plate armor, crossbows (some metal parts there, right?), Battle Axes , Toolkits... (and Daggers, but who cares about them). It doesn't affect Artifacts which means magical swords aren't impacted (Spirit Blade, Orc's Bane).

Now the version of "Rust" found in Wizards of Morcar seems much more powerful, since it refers to "equipment" (which opens it up to a lot of metal items, which means Morcar has to make a judgement call). Then again they haven't remade WOM, so I'll stick to the Chaos (excuse me "Dread" in this remake) spells we presume are available.

I have no problem believing there is a wooden shield (historically this was common), though the one in the NA artwork looks to have metal bracers around a wooden core. Then again, description trumps artwork, as we all know from the fact that Borin's Armor has always showed a helmet, but still works with a helmet, miniatures stand in for a variety of things not just what they actually look like, etc.

And even though it is called "rust" of course and is acting on metal, we are taking about a magical power here, so it doesn't necessarily have to follow the known laws of physics, but setting parameters on it is prudent for game balance and avoidance of distracting arguments at the game table. It's Zargon/Morcar's call in the end!

[Daedalus]

Is there any location that discusses whether the same spell “stacks”? Because if it doesn’t stack then being able to immediately “recast it” might not be an issue?

TLDR; No, spell "stacking" isn't covered in Hero Quest, though it might be inferred though other cases of exceptions found within the Instruction Book, Armory, expansions, and cards. First off is the case already brought up:

. . .
We already know that “one extra dice” doesn’t stack for equipment. IE you can’t wear two helmets. Or have on two chainmail. If you cast a spell once, the hero would get the benefit, and if was cast it again they would just “overwrite” the spell. And you’re still only getting “one extra dice...”

Yes, bonus dice do not stack with the same armor type. And as Kurgan later pointed out, two Shields is a possible exception. The Wizard's armor prohibitions indicate the difference: "May not be worn by the Wizard."--Helmet, Chain Mail and Plate Mail/ "May not be used by the Wizard."--Shield.

The common-sense logic is that the same armor cannot be stacked physically when worn, so the extra dice don't stack either. The Shield remains a possible (but generally impractical) exception because of the different action implied by used. A Shield can be used in one hand, so two can be used in each hand for two stacked Defend Dice.

There is a more practical case of dice that don't stack, but with a specified exception for attacking. The Instruction Booklet allows a Hero to make separate defense rolls for separate attacks from multiple monsters in a turn. So Zargon can't add 3AD + 3AD = 6AD from two attacking Orcs.

The exception to attacks is found in an expansion, the Barbarian Quest Pack. A Polar Warbear has two attacks which effectively stack since the defending Hero may only defend once against both of it's attacks. In other words, 4AD + 4AD = 8AD.

The key thing to keep in mind is that it is worded as “Spell X grants you one extra attack and defend dice.”

They can’t (in dragon ball style) “super-Shapeshift”. They’re not casting “Shapeshift Bear” and “Shapeshift Tiger”. (Which in my opinion might be able to stack.)

They’re casting the exact same spell. They still are only affected by the spell “Shapeshift”. As long as they’re affected by that spell they would get the one additional attack and defense dice. . . .

The key term causing uncertainty in my opinion is ". . . one extra attack. . . ."

extra
adjective
¹ beyond or more than what is usual, expected, or necessary; additional

I'd say ". . . more than what is usual, expected. . ." has a separate sense in HQ from ". . . additional." The first sense of "extra" doesn’t allow spell stacking because going beyond what is usual--the druid's standard AD and DD before the spell--is a one-time change to an unusual, modified state (+1AD, +1DD.) The Druid's scores are no longer usual while under the effects of the Shape-Shift spell, so it cannot be cast again until the spell effect is first lost, returning the scores to the usual state.

However, I think the second sense (additional) does work with stacking. The starting Druid with 3 BP casts Shapehift once (1+1 AD and 2+1 DD.) She next has her BPs restored, regaining the spell. Later, she casts the spell again, granting her one extra (additional) AD and DD (2+1 AD, 3+1 DD.) The effect of the spell in this interpretation is a simple math operation done twice.

Based on Doug Hopkin's stated intention to keep a shapeshifted Druid on par with the Barbarian, he apparently doesn't expect Shapeshift to stack. However, were I one of his play-testers, I'd point to how stacking was handled in the Kellar's Keep and Return of the Witch Lord.

In the Alchemist's Shop, the Potion of Dexterity adds 5 movement squares--but no more--as the text specifies only one of these potions may be used by a Hero per turn should he buy more. This is clearly an exception to prevent stacking of the same bonus effect. Since an exception exists, it follows that other potions without such explicit restrictions may be drunk more than once in a turn, as per the no-limit rule for potions found on p.17 of the Instruction Booklet. So a Hero could drink two Potions of Defense and gain 2 extra DD +2 extra DD = 4 extra DD for one turn.

Others may disagree, but I judge it reasonable that the concept of permitted stacking of potion bonuses anagolously applies to any spell card as long as a restriction isn't explicitly included in the text (see here.) For instance, if it is possible to recast Rock Skin either through the use of a Potion of Magical Aptitude, the Spell Ring, or a Spell Scroll, then a Hero could gain the bonus twice (1 extra DD +1 extra DD = 2 extra DD.) The downside is once any BP damage is suffered, all extra DD are lost at once as the end conditions of both spells are met simultaneously.

As for Shapeshift as currently worded, the spell is at least absolutely limited to +2 AD, +2 DD (one stack.). The Druid is set to do this twice a Quest. Eventually while double-shapeshifted, that's either 6 AD/ 4DD (Battle Axe) or 5 AD/ 5DD (Longsword and Shield.) A Barbarian will likely have either 4AD/ 4 or 5DD, or 3AD/ 5 or 6DD. As I said earlier in this thread, I'd hope Avalon Hill playtesting reveals if playing Shapeshift this way is overpowered, considering the Druid is usually combat-compromised.

[Kurgan]

Yeah if it were me writing this, I wouldn't explicitly negate "stacking" throughout the game, JUST to make this one character not overpowered. Just put a clarification in there about the Druid's particular spell not being stackable (if that's the issue).

Tossing a potion on top of your buff spell in effect is really awesome, especially if you had a couple of them. But regainable spells are a tricky thing if they seem to be abusable to make your character OP.

[cynthialee]

two minds here....

1. No it can't stack that is stupid

2. Sure go for it, it is a 'Power Move' that you get 1 time and that is it. When we play our Barbie is throwing out 4-5 dice attacks all game long (with out buffs) while wearing a 4 dice suit of armor and a ring of protection (home-brew item) for 5 dice defense (really glad the Cloak of Protection is Wizard Only....) Then throw in Rock Skin Spell or defense potion....6 dice or 7 then and if they can be stacked even more....

It is a board game, allow the playing of combination cards for Power Moves....it isn't like they are doing it all day long.

[Kurgan]

I never allowed the Cloak to be combined with other types of armor even though I guess you could say you just drape it around you, regardless of what else you have on.

It's a game mechanic for balance sake, after all. Otherwise, we might as well say you CAN combine a battle axe with a shield (and let the Wizard use both), because that's still "realistic."

I've been won over by the argument of those that two instances of the same "spell" simply extend the duration, rather than double the effect (unless we're talking say, "Heal Body" then by all means max out their body points), as opposed to potions, which flat out do stack unless they say otherwise on the card/alchemist shop entry. In the classic game, certain artifacts can introduce multiple instances of the same spell, so it has precedent. But you're right, that it's not going to last forever even if you take the most liberal "power move" interpretation.

[dungeonsandataraxia]

Well, I hate it.

So, I'm here (on this board right now) because I played HeroQuest a lot when I was a kid (always Zargon, pretty much), don't know where that stuff ended up, so I went for the remake.

The new heroes almost make me not even want to bother. It just shows me that they didn't care. They got these absolute knobs from WotC to come in and make their personal 5E DnD characters... and they are wildly out of place in this game. It's just makes me think the whole thing , or at least all the new stuff is going to be silly - and being done by people who never actually played the thing and don't care about what makes it what it is. We'll see, but all three of these characters will either be NPCs I'll shove in there or somewhere or baddies to kill in my game. Original 4 only.

Then again I sort of hate 5E DnD and play OSR retroclones / BX in terms of that. Race as class. Fighter, Cleric, Thief, Magic User, Dwarf, Elf, Halfling. No you can't be a Dwarf Cleric. Minimalism is part of it, but there are other things as well..

[Kurgan]

Would you still hate it if it looked like this? Well, probably...

[wallydubbs]

Giving g her White/blond hair makes her look like Elena from Street Fighter.