Solo and 2 man team Heroes.

[el_flesh]

You can run into trouble if drinking a potion is an action. The hero might have done an action, then fought, then the monsters get him in trouble. Drinking a potion should be a minor action that a hero can do at any time, even while falling to the ground in defeat...

[whitebeard]

In a solo quest, I would consider giving the Ranger a companion animal. And a healing / bind wounds ability for the animal only. This healing can only be used in empty rooms / hallways.

In a solo quest, a chaos spell like "command" is useless? Can I make the player drink all of their healing potions? And not attack my monsters while they are being pummeled?

[knightkrawler]

I think "making the quest easier" is exactly what no veteran or even non-beginner would want.
It's completely beside the point, and to be honest, I 'm rather shocked it got suggested in this thread. As if it wasn't the first and easiest solution for anyone thinking about the issue...

The heroes Cynthia made are exactly for non-beginners who have started with new heroes more often than they care to admit.
It gets boring. I, for one, would rather have it this way.

[Teldurn]

The qualities of a viable solo character would be that it can disarm traps, lay down some considerable damage, be able to tank effectively, and (presumably) also cast some spells. This would translate to:

* a very high BP value - maybe 10 or 12
* Decent MP - Perhaps 6
* Access to all spells (but can only choose x number of them at the beginning of a Quest - maybe 6)
* Ability to disarm a trap with or without a Toolkit - I'm thinking have a native ability to disarm as if you own a Toolkit. Actually owning a Toolkit means you can disarm like a Dwarf
* Can equip all items and Artifacts

Quests would also need to be designed such that the solo Hero can avoid instant death a la Yeti "Bearhug of Death."

[Count Mohawk]

One other thought regarding play with only one or two Heroes is that their maximum level of strength needs to be higher than the maximum achievable by a Hero in a normal party-of-four environment. In practical terms, this means they will need to be able to increase in power above a fully-equipped base-set Hero, who would probably have two or three of the battle axe, crossbow and/or longsword to attack with, as well as a helmet, a shield and chain or plate mail. These weapons and armor set the high bar at Attack 4 | Defend 5 or Attack 3 | Defend 6.

That's the real problem with a Barbarian Lord or equivalent who starts with 1,500 gold worth of items (which, incidentally, will purchase a Battle Axe, Crossbow, Helmet and Chain Mail with a few gold left over): you cut out a large portion of the opportunity to level your Heroes up over the course of many Quests. One low-level fix for this problem would be to introduce a weapon with 5 attack strength in the armory, or a better shield or helmet that affords two extra Defend dice instead of just one.

[knightkrawler]

Valid points, yes, but I'd go with artefacts.
A nice little Bihander for 5 AD, an enchanted helmet for +2 DD...

[Anderas]

Kk, really you are shocked by the proposal to touch the quest?
You will have to do it here and there. The command spell needs to disappear, the Yeti Hug too.

But ok it is just one of several proposals.

The 5 AT 6 DE Guy needs a second attack, too. Otherwise the mass of enemies will tear him down slowly.

[knightkrawler]

Kk, really you are shocked by the proposal to touch the quest?
You will have to do it here and there. The command spell needs to disappear, the Yeti Hug too.

But ok it is just one of several proposals.

The 5 AT 6 DE Guy needs a second attack, too. Otherwise the mass of enemies will tear him down slowly.

I meant the general suggestion of BB to "make quests easier" rather than coming up with a real soultion against veteran players' boredom.
Of course, even when implementing Cynthia's heroes, you have to change some things, like those you mentioned. In that, you're absolutely right.

[Big Bene]

I think "making the quest easier" is exactly what no veteran or even non-beginner would want.
It's completely beside the point, and to be honest, I 'm rather shocked it got suggested in this thread. As if it wasn't the first and easiest solution for anyone thinking about the issue...

The heroes Cynthia made are exactly for non-beginners who have started with new heroes more often than they care to admit.
It gets boring. I, for one, would rather have it this way.

I'm shocked you could get me so wrong.
I said that

I like the "master class" heroes as you did them, and think there will be good opportunities to use them

and one good use would be to prevent boredom of players who have started with the same new heroes more often than they care to admit.

But the original purpose of the master heroes was to be used when not all players can attend the game, so you don't have a full group of heroes. Then the remaining players can use those beefed up characters to compensate for the missing force of the absent heroes.
At least that's how I understood the origninal post.

And in my humble opinion now that's something no veteran would want. More often than not the group will be in the middle of a running campaign.
Cynthia's games are heavily on the roleplaying side, judging by everything she posts. But even with vanilla HQ, you are supposed to identify with your hero to some degree, watching him grow, remebering his deeds. So, players, expecially veteran players, would normally not want to replace their hero with someone else. In effect, as the other heroes are absent, this would mean an entirely differnt party of heroes would get the fame for resolving this part of the campaign.

So, I would suggest, in the situation as described, with some players absent, to still use the standard heroes. You don't have to follow me here, but if you do, I offered some thoughts how to adapt the game for the lower number of players.
Of course, if you like the challange and, being a "veteran", refuse having things eased up for you, you can still try to go for it and solve the quest with the remaing party without any modifications. But then again it would make no sense to use beefed up heroes.
But if you want to somehow compensate for the missing heroes and keep the difficulty level the same (as intended by the OP, if I got it right), but keep the standard heroes, then there are some possibilities, making the quest easier is just one of them.

[knightkrawler]

I've played with players who are eager to try something new once they feel accomplished. A Barbarian wanting to switch to the Elf ranger (female) is not unknown to me - including acting the part. That's why I think my players (of which there are two now) would prefer Cynthia's master heroes to easier quests even though they have no problem playing two heroes each. They do all the time.
I do not think HQ caters to players wanting their heroes grow as in an RPG. There is no advancement but equipment and artefacts so the only way to "advance" is stay alive and hoard. That's not enough inclination to stay with one hero.

Now, maybe my post sounded a bit harsh. Of course your suggestions, BB, are not bad or anything. I just feel they don't comply with what Cynthia requires when she comes up with master heroes, that's all. At least for me, it's not an alternative. As for how I offer heroes to players and how we handle death, I posted the corresponding excerpt of my rules here: http://forum.yeoldeinn.com/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=3004&hilit=knightkrawlerfor anyone who cares. It's in the first post. It can be implemented directly into vanilla HQ and even makes sense when playing master heroes where the descriptive text like Cynthia wrote them are on the rolesheet so the heroes start buffed up.