Ye Olde Inn

I'm intrigued - I'm writing on this now. I'll paste when I get done writing.

Thanks for stoking the fire of creativity.

If you want a healer, then solve it with a minor artifact which effectively customizes the wizard.

The minor artifact (such as a healer holy symbol available for "free") to any wizard during character creation modifies the rules as follows:

1 The healer automatically recieves the earth and water elements (both healing spells), E.g. the elf must then choose fire or air.

2 Any additional spell slots (e.g the spell ring) must be filled with a healing spell.

3 any spell card, spell scroll , or potion may instead be discarded to cast a 1BP of healing spell.

This should do very little to disrupt the balance.

What is a player's motivation to play a healer character? It sounds kind of boring to me.

j_dean80 wrote:What is a player's motivation to play a healer character? It sounds kind of boring to me.

There is no motivation. I think people write up too many hero classes simply because they think of them.
The healer might be a bad example because strategically, a hero group has good need of one, but on the wanting to play him part, I agree with you.

knightkrawler wrote:I think people write up too many hero classes simply because they think of them.

Completely agree. HQ just doesn't have enough granularity to support more than a handful of different heroes, they nearly all end up being just one of the originals with a couple of minor differences.

I actually have a player who specifically wants to play a healing class, which is why we are looking to create one. While I would be bored out of my mind playing primary healing class, the player wants it as he doesn't enjoy hacking and dealing damage. He likes to micromanage and a playing a support role, managing the health of everyone else intrigues him. (that said, the healing hero we designed can also do a few damage spells as well but at the cost of mp and bp damage to himself).

otherwise though yes, all the heroes we create in my group are roughly the same as the primary heroes with a few differences for flair or flavor. We create a few altered hero classes to give something different to play after a hero dies.

I will say though that we also add multiple different things for the evil wizard side to make the game harder, and play one off nights where we do huge raid like dungeons not using a HQ board but still using the HQ combat system. This allows us to add other classes into the mix that really are quite different than the typical classes (such as a druid beastmaster which has a completely different combat system, or rogues who can go into stealth mode as a skill card).

The typical heroquest quests though, we play with the primary heroes or original heroes only to expand to other classes later (using storytelling to weave them into the questlines here or there and becoming playable thereafter)

knightkrawler wrote:

j_dean80 wrote:What is a player's motivation to play a healer character? It sounds kind of boring to me.

There is no motivation. I think people write up too many hero classes simply because they think of them.
The healer might be a bad example because strategically, a hero group has good need of one, but on the wanting to play him part, I agree with you.

I think the problem goes the other way. There is absolutely no need for new classes because the game has everything covered already.

Player: "I want to be a healer"
Zargon: "Done!" <hands player the Wizard>

Player: "I want to be a Rogue"
Zargon: "Done!" <hands player the Elf>

Player: "I want to be a knight"
Zargon: "Done!" <hands player the Barbarian>

Player: "I want to be a Necromancer"
Zargon: "Done!" <hands player the quest book and grabs the Dwarf for himself>

whitebeard wrote:

knightkrawler wrote:

j_dean80 wrote:What is a player's motivation to play a healer character? It sounds kind of boring to me.

There is no motivation. I think people write up too many hero classes simply because they think of them.
The healer might be a bad example because strategically, a hero group has good need of one, but on the wanting to play him part, I agree with you.

I think the problem goes the other way. There is absolutely no need for new classes because the game has everything covered already.

Player: "I want to be a healer"
Zargon: "Done!" <hands player the Wizard>

Player: "I want to be a Rogue"
Zargon: "Done!" <hands player the Elf>

Player: "I want to be a knight"
Zargon: "Done!" <hands player the Barbarian>

Player: "I want to be a Necromancer"
Zargon: "Done!" <hands player the quest book and grabs the Dwarf for himself>

knightkrawler wrote:

whitebeard wrote:

knightkrawler wrote:

j_dean80 wrote:What is a player's motivation to play a healer character? It sounds kind of boring to me.

There is no motivation. I think people write up too many hero classes simply because they think of them.
The healer might be a bad example because strategically, a hero group has good need of one, but on the wanting to play him part, I agree with you.

I think the problem goes the other way. There is absolutely no need for new classes because the game has everything covered already.

Player: "I want to be a healer"
Zargon: "Done!" <hands player the Wizard>

Player: "I want to be a Rogue"
Zargon: "Done!" <hands player the Elf>

Player: "I want to be a knight"
Zargon: "Done!" <hands player the Barbarian>

Player: "I want to be a Necromancer"
Zargon: "Done!" <hands player the quest book and grabs the Dwarf for himself>

well said. although I will say, how do you convert the game for more players? one of the other reasons we have other classes is that while we started with 5 total players (including zargon) we expanded to a regular group of 8 people, thus necessitating extra monsters with updated stats for difficulty and extra classes for heroes.

so yes, you are correct, in the base form of the game, no other classes are needed. but if we are adding to the game (hence being in the additions section of forum (which I say without the intent of sounding smug)) and modifying both difficulty and the number of players playing, the base heroes become monotonous if duplicating.

that's the beauty of heroquest. it can give you what you want out of the game. at its base level it plays great, but it also allows for enough freedom to add and modify while still succeeding as a game. for that I say, to each there own. to the core fundamentalists...cheers. to those adding, or even to those that want to play a healer... cheers as well. (and now I feel like oprah..." you get a cheers...you get a cheers...everyone get's a cheers")

whitebeard wrote:

knightkrawler wrote:

j_dean80 wrote:What is a player's motivation to play a healer character? It sounds kind of boring to me.

There is no motivation. I think people write up too many hero classes simply because they think of them.
The healer might be a bad example because strategically, a hero group has good need of one, but on the wanting to play him part, I agree with you.

I think the problem goes the other way. There is absolutely no need for new classes because the game has everything covered already.

Player: "I want to be a healer"
Zargon: "Done!" <hands player the Wizard>

Player: "I want to be a Rogue"
Zargon: "Done!" <hands player the Elf>

Player: "I want to be a knight"
Zargon: "Done!" <hands player the Barbarian>

Player: "I want to be a Necromancer"
Zargon: "Done!" <hands player the quest book and grabs the Dwarf for himself>

Noice