If I were to make the perfect dungeon board game, I would...

[Big Bene]

Perhaps the wizard could recover one spell for every 3 rooms he participates in clearing?

Waaay to complicated.
Well, I don't really see why the wizard should not safe his spells/mana/arsenal for the boss if this is the way the player wants to play.

[Goblin-King]

Because a lot of people think the wiz is the worst character because the only thing that makes him good is a limited resource.
The other characters can use powerful attacks every single turn, getting into the fray and the fun. Wizboy just lingers behind trying not to die.
Cynth's story is pretty typical. Either the wiz is wasting his spells, or he risks having unused spells at the end of the quest.

I'm not saying the spell system in HQ is terrible, but it's definitely flawed.

[knightkrawler]

I can not agree that a shield should be needed. I have done a little sword play in my day and counter attacks are a matter of skill and preparation, you get a proper counter attack with well executed fencing skills.

Did you do a little two-handed battleaxe play, too?
It's more about the AD restriction than about the shield. I didn't put that into the idea explicitly, but it restricts the counterattack possibility to 3 attack dice with simple wording.
Plus, it differentiates shield from helmet other than that they are stackable.

[Goblin-King]

If you play as a big breasted female hero, can you wear three helmets?

[cynthialee]

If you play as a big breasted female hero, can you wear three helmets?

Misogyny laden comment made me laugh.

[Schmidt]

I can not agree that a shield should be needed. I have done a little sword play in my day and counter attacks are a matter of skill and preparation, you get a proper counter attack with well executed fencing skills.

Did you do a little two-handed battleaxe play, too?
It's more about the AD restriction than about the shield. I didn't put that into the idea explicitly, but it restricts the counterattack possibility to 3 attack dice with simple wording.
Plus, it differentiates shield from helmet other than that they are stackable.

Are you talking about HQ or The Awesomest Dungeon Krawler Ever Imagined?

[knightkrawler]

I can not agree that a shield should be needed. I have done a little sword play in my day and counter attacks are a matter of skill and preparation, you get a proper counter attack with well executed fencing skills.

Did you do a little two-handed battleaxe play, too?
It's more about the AD restriction than about the shield. I didn't put that into the idea explicitly, but it restricts the counterattack possibility to 3 attack dice with simple wording.
Plus, it differentiates shield from helmet other than that they are stackable.

Are you talking about HQ or The Awesomest Dungeon Krawler Ever Imagined?

Barbarian Defensive Skill: Counterattack
If the adjacent monster attacking you does not roll any skulls you can counterattack it with 1 less C.D. than normal.

Waaayy O.P.! It means two attacks per turn for the barbarian in the sense of attack, waiting for his turn, move, attack, or finish off the monster with a second attack and then move.

I could see allowing a counter attack but I would have the Barbarian only get to roll those dice the bad guy rolled that came up as White Shields. (Also, if I allowed this mechanic I would insist that Firmir, boss Orks and Chaos Warriors may also take advantage of this rule.)

Maybe also only if equipped with a shield.

You had to make this a mess, didn't you?
And I did notice that spelling of Dungeon Krawler. Awesome indeed.

[slev]

How easy is it to counter attack using only a sword compared to using a shield + sword?

Assuming both equally skilled sides are armed with equivalent arming swords and one also has a shield, the shielded fighter has more options and I'd expect them to win.

If I'm teaching newbies to fight, I can easily counter-attack no matter the arms on each side. Against experienced people, it's still possible, but it's mostly down to manoeuvrability.

[Big Bene]

Well, I don't really see why the wizard should not safe his spells/mana/arsenal for the boss if this is the way the player wants to play.

Because a lot of people think the wiz is the worst character because the only thing that makes him good is a limited resource.
The other characters can use powerful attacks every single turn, getting into the fray and the fun. Wizboy just lingers behind trying not to die.
Cynth's story is pretty typical. Either the wiz is wasting his spells, or he risks having unused spells at the end of the quest.

As I see it, you try to help the wizard with his limited resource by limiting him even further.
The problem is not to prevent him "wasting" his spells (if he wants to) or to spare them for the boss (if this is what he wants), but to provide him with enough useful spells which are not overly powerful (and not overly expensive), but good enough to make him an active team member.
I think a mana system would go in this direction, as it makes the mage more flexible - he can choose to use the same not-so-powerful-not-so-expensive spell more than once if he finds it useful, OR keep the mana for a more powerful killer spell.

Thinking more theoretically, to really solve this problem, there would have to be a special rule-relevant task for wich the mage is specialized, as is meele combat for the barbarian and disarming traps for the dwarf.

But this goes back directly to our core problem: We are talking about the Heroquest wizard and the weaknesses he has in the Heroquest rules, compared to other Heroquest characters. In the perfect Dungeoncrawler, perhaps there should not even be fixed charcter classes.

[Schmidt]

you mean like a Barzard or a Wizarian?