Spiked Shield.

[Daedalus]

How about something that harkens back to your original design?

Spiked Shield: Any white shields rolled in defense may instead hit your attacker.

A Hero can elect to forego some, all, or no defended damage from a hit to transfer it and any excess white shields against his attacker. If you feel that is still overpowered, "Any white shields . . ." could be capped to One white shield. . . ..

just to verify, you meant if a monster throws 2 successes and the hero has say 4 white shields, the hero can sacrifice 2 white shields to accept 2 damage to himself and throw back 2 damage to the attacker. He/she can then also use the additional 2 white shields not needed for the defense and inflict 2 more damage? (or as the last comment said cap the extra damage at 1white shield). intriguing. . . .

Yeah, that's the idea, though "then" isn't needed.

. . . how about if the hero decides to sacrifice just 1 shield and take the just one hit to inflict 1 damage, then opts to block the second hit with the white shield for defense. Can he then still use the excess white shields (2) to inflict the additional damage (does 3 damage total (or 2 if capping at 1 excess shield), takes 1 hit, blocks 1 hit), or does he have to accept both hits to use the excess shield to inflict wdamage . . .

I think my explanatory passage about forgoing damage came off a bit misleading. Yes, a Hero rolling 4 white shields against 2 hits can elect to take 1 BP damage, block a hit with 1 white shield and do 3 BP damage with the other 3 white shields. But no, it isn't necessary that the Hero accept both hits to use his extra white shields. In fact, I intended the choice to accept any amount of damage to be left up to the Hero with no preconditions.

However, if the rule were changed with a one-white-shield cap, I intended that only 1 BP of damage could be done with the shield against an attacking monster. The other 3 white shields would all need to be used in defense only.

Perhaps "Any white shields rolled in defense . . ." would work better as Up to two white shields rolled in defense. . .. That would set the damage cap at 2 AD, much like a shortsword. That's pretty good for an occasional bonus attack equivalent. This kind of item could work well in a tiered armory in my opinion, where other cool equipment choices were also made available (much like how potions become available in expansions.)

I think allowing "Any white shields rolled in defense. . ." also works fine for the occasional awesome counter to an attack, but I'd feel more comfortable in my game if this level of use were reserved for a skill that was earned or purchased.

. . . or what about if he has 4 white shields, can he block both of the 2 hits then use the excess 2 shields for damage, or does he have to accept at least 1 point of damage on himself first?

it is all intriguing to me, I just wanted to verify your thoughts for clarity as I ponder.

Yes, the Hero could block with 2 white shields and use the 2 excess white shields for damage. He doesn't need to accept at least 1 BP of damage.

[DullandRusty]

was your version an unblockable attack, or does the monster have a chance to roll defense against your shield attack?

I wonder if the # of white shields used for damaging the attacker isnt capped, if it would be overpowered. lets say you have the US version of the gargoyle attacking you. You are the barbarian and roll 4+ defense dice with armor etc you have, If you have 8 bp, that might be a no brainer to take the damage and essentially oneshot the gargoyle. If you block the damage instead, then you still have to roll an attack the next turn. lets say you have the longsword. 3 dice vs the gargoyle's def dice is probably going to net 1 damage, maybe 2 if you are lucky. (at this rate it will take say maybe 3+ rounds to beat it) the gargoyle then gets to attack you again with better odds to out roll skulls compared to white shields (even more so if you play the rule of the gargoyle can attack twice). So it is much more beneficial provided you have 5BP or more to just one shot him and hope for a heal spell or use a healing potion rather than get in round by round combat with the beast.

Now, if you said the monster got a chance to block the rebound attack with 1 dice per rebound chosen (still needing a black shield), then that makes it a little less likely that the hits all succeed and makes the shield a little less overpowered. It makes the hero really think twice about using all the white shields as damage, as the gargoyle would likely still be alive for a second round while the hero now has a precarious amount of BP left.

[mitchiemasha]

Which is all good. It brings choices to your combat, do i take this risk now... One might get a good kill on a strong monster but it's weakened the Hero or used up that potion.

Don't forget the spiked shield is a 'rare' item and expensive. A stock roll will usually have it at twice the cost or out of stock. It's also broken on 3 Black Shields, a roll that doesn't happen often but more likely if buffed with a potion, when it really is a threat.

[Daedalus]

was your version an unblockable attack, or does the monster have a chance to roll defense against your shield attack? . . .

The way I'd play it, white shields used as hits against the Hero's attacker may be defended normally. That means the monster gets one defense roll to block those white shields used as hits.

[Daedalus]

Spiked Shield: Any white shields rolled in defense may instead hit your attacker.

This is all very intriguing. Here's a scenario to consider as well, assuming that the Attacker is allowed a defense roll against the "rebounded" white shield attacks from the shield, imagine this:

Two heroes each carry a Spiked Shield. The EWP controls a spellcasting Monster, and casts Mind Control on one of the Heroes, then attacks the other. They would end up "spiking" each other back and forth for as long as excess white shields were rolled. Ultimately, as soon as one of them was damaged, or rolled exactly enough white shields to block the attack, the loop would end, but still a silly concept that could result depending on the wording of the item.

NOTE: You can avoid this by clarifying that the rebounded hits are not a player Attack, but may still be defended against. i.e. the Defender does not become an Attacker by rolling excess white shields, instead the shield itself causes the Attack.

". . . assuming that the Attacker is allowed a defense roll against the "rebounded" white shield attacks from the shield, . . ."
That's an assumption I intended with ". . . may instead hit your attacker." Referring to "hit" in the rules reveals defending is automatically included. As mitchiemasha prefers brevity, I opted out of finishing with ". . . , which are then defended normally."

". . . as soon as one of them was damaged, or rolled exactly enough white shields to block the attack, the loop would end, . . ."
Though possible, I don't see the loop necessarily ending with either of those conditions as a white shield needn't be used to block a hit with the spiked shield. A Hero can elect to accept a hit and instead use the white shield that would have blocked it to hit his attacker. The only two sure-fire ends to reciprocating, rebounding spiked-shield attacks between two defending Heroes would be a failure of one of them to roll any white shields or for one of the combatants to be reduced to zero BPs.

I personally don't see the need to adjust the spiked-shield rule to accommodate such an exotic instance. The scenario described is still workable if seen as a series of contested rolls that achieve a final result. Maybe multiple defense rolls will bring about multiple hits against each combatant, but just one actual attack starts it all so it still fits within the turn structure.

Well, that's my preference, anyway. As you suggest, it's possible to amend the rule for those who want to full proof it against a feedback loop. I'd word it this way:

Spiked Shield: Any white shields rolled in defense of an attack may instead hit your attacker.

[lestodante]

I'd prefer that the damage is just of 1 bp even if I roll 2 extra unused white shields and also the enemy should have its chance to defend or, if it id not allowed to defend, it gets stunned and lose the next turn.

[mitchiemasha]

Yeah... but the problem with all that is, it breaks the first rule of HQ, simplicity. Try writing that into 1 simple indisputable wording. We're talking 1 line 14ish words. What we have to look at is how it would play out. Most monsters are 1BP only, so for them it makes no odds. Facing a more powerful monster, they would land more hits, unless fumbling a roll (so they deserve it), having more than 1 shield to spare (on a monster it would make a difference) would be rare.

We could have.
Spiked Shield: If you have any white shields not used to block hits, inflict 1 hit on the attacker. Attacker defends as normal.
Spiked Shield: If you have any white shields not used to block hits, inflict 1 auto wound on the attacker.
Spiked Shield: Inflict 1 auto wound on the attacker if rolling more white shields in defence than you need to block hits.
Spiked Shield: Inflict 1 hit on the attacker when rolling more white shields in defence than you need to block hits. Attacker defends as normal.

All the above are too wordy. The smaller ones are close, possibly ditch the wording I've striked through as per the next comment. We could even ditch 'Auto' as long as our general rules are clear that 'hit' refers to an attack that is defendable and 'wound' refers to undefendable.

Spiked Shield: Inflict 1 wound on the attacker if rolling more White Shields than you need to defend. (Wound could be hit. More could be extra).

16 words, the version we chose earlier in the thread stands at 12 and offers the bonus of in game choices. In game choices are great to add spice for long time players, the only people who'd ever acquire such an item. The final version above is a dry reactive mechanic, it simply does as it does.

[Bareheaded Warrior]

I don't wish to rain on anyone's parade but I'm not a fan of this concept personally.

Essentially what is being proposed / discussed is a shield that can be used to counter-attack rather than just defend.

In the real-world, a standard shield is more a weapon than armour, can be used to attack an opponent, by smashing them in the face with the rim amongst other options, and its defensive properties (outside of ranged combat and shield walls - not really applicable in HQ) derive from its ability to parry an opponents attack, a property common to most weapons, but more so in the case of a shield.

HOWEVER in the simplicity of HeroQuest combat is split cleanly into ATTACK and DEFENCE aspects so the property of parrying is kind of built-in as part of your defend value (presumably part of the vague 2 defend dice) and part of the attacker's roll (rolling shields) so the shield's defensive aspect results in it being classified as ARMOUR and its attacking function being dropped. The alternative would be to make it an attack weapon with no defend properties which is worse!

For me personally to, at least in part, reversing that "split ATTACK and DEFEND" logic, by having armour that attacks you back, goes against a fundamental HeroQuest 'principle'. Many games use a trio of values like COMBAT (to work out who hits who), DAMAGE (potential loss of BP 'skulls'), ARMOUR (potential save of lost BP 'shields'), which is absolutely fine, possibly even an improvement, and under those system a shield would give you a bonus to your COMBAT value and a certain DAMAGE value if you used it to attack (and a spiked shield would presumably give you a higher DAMAGE value if you used it to attack) but those systems are not HeroQuest.

The other issue with armour that attacks you back, occurs when both opponent's in a fight are equipped with it, I hit you with my sword, your spiked shield hits me back, my spiked shield hits back against your spiked shield... sounds more like a tennis match.

[/rant]