Ye Olde Inn

Goblin-King wrote:I would actually have liked to see her lose the ability to regain Shapeshift and lose the two healing spells.
Then give her 3 different shapeshifting spells to use throughout the dungeon. Just embrace it and make her a dedicated shapeshifter.

Shapeshift tiger: +1 Attack
Shapeshift Eagle: +1 Defense + Flying
Shapeshift bear: +1 attack and +1 defense

Or something like that... It would definitely make her a more streamlined hero.

Yes, I totally agree... I was thinking the same yesterday... Why could she only shift in a bear while her artwork is showing a tiger claw instead??
Also they seems to continue to limit a group of spells to 3 cards only. A good character could have weak spells but more cards in his group. Four or five spells can be assigned to a single Hero to compensate other weakness.

I'm fine with a character having pre-set spells (I created several of them like this myself). The idea here is that the Elf and Wizard are still special because they have potentially more variety with their magic.

As for the Pixie, the logic in my head is that Tinkerbell is carried in a jar. After use, she needs to rest (or roam free in search of nourishment).

I'd personally rather pick three of these spells.

Kurgan wrote:I wonder how things would go with more than four Heroes at a time...

I think it's possible, though game length will extend. Zargon should add 25%, 50%, or 75% more monsters to a Quest for one, two, or three more Heroes. Also, track the turn order with a first-player marker so that Zargon always has a turn after four Heroes. The fifth Hero instead takes the first-player marker and starts a new turn sequence after Zargon.

A six-Hero example:

Round 1 Barbarian*, Dwarf, Elf, Wizard, Zargon
Round 2 Bard*, Druid, Barbarian, Dwarf, Zargon
Round 3 Elf*, Wizard, Bard, Druid, Zargon
Repeat cycle
_*starts with the first-player marker

I didn't really think about the turn issue. No change is made when there are mercs (which could mean up to TWELVE more characters being moved on the Hero side... granted not in this remake. and granted, the mercs are pretty weak, having only 1-2 body points, but still).

I've never done it, but someday I'd like to try HeroQuest with five or six heroes. I figure just pick a really hard one, and hopefully somebody doesn't take forever on their turn and let the person at the end get bored.

Yeah, making a Quest harder with even more extra monsters would work. Not sure of how high to bump the percentage to preserve balance. Perhaps +50%, +75%, +100% extra monsters for +1, 2, or 3 Heroes would suffice. Maybe more . . . I don't know. However, the more monsters you add, the longer the game takes. Rooms also get more crowded.

I've always thought of Mercenaries as a planned-for buff in the appropriate expansions. The number of monsters in those Quests already reflect said bump. So yeah, increasing monsters has a precedent.

Maybe someone can invent the "Hero Quest Clock" ? Then again, the Evil Wizard Cards are supposed to "speed up" gameplay, but then we're talking about people wandering the dungeons not just the time it takes just to go from one turn to the next.

if you play with six heroes it is recommenadble tu set extra rules for turns, INITIATIVE for example.
Or mosters will be all slayed before the EWP can move them. Isn't better to discuss this on another topic?

lestodante wrote:if you play with six heroes it is recommenadble tu set extra rules for turns. . . .Isn't better to discuss this on another topic?

Well, Now you made me find More than four Heroes at a time... (6+ players).

the reason why all three new heroes Hasbro introduced fail is because they are designed as individual characters rather than a new generic playable class. They should be NPCs in a storyline not new hero selections.The druid at least could be reasonably modified from the existing game materials so anyone could play a generic druid, but the orc bard and halfling demon possessed female warlock are hopeless, far too random and rare of combinations to plausibly play another if that particular one dies.If players must modify the game from the way it was released to make it usable at all as a generic class that is poor game design.

They should have been thinking along the lines of D&D playable classes or Gauntlet II arcade game: "I'm going as the Barbarian!" (red barbarian enters the game) "Me too!" (blue barbarian enters) Players should be able to select any of the generic character classes (Wizard, Elf, Dwarf, or Barbarian) to generate their adventuring party, and they could have easily added more playable classes or races such as gnome, halfling, thief, cleric or even bard to choose from, but they didn't. Instead they gave us bizzarre individual personalities that don't fit well into HeroQuest and certainly aren't new playable generic class types.

Cael Darkhollow wrote:the reason why all three new heroes Hasbro introduced fail is because they are designed as individual characters rather than a new generic playable class. They should be NPCs in a storyline not new hero selections.The druid at least could be reasonably modified from the existing game materials so anyone could play a generic druid, but the orc bard and halfling demon possessed female warlock are hopeless, far too random and rare of combinations to plausibly play another if that particular one dies.If players must modify the game from the way it was released to make it usable at all as a generic class that is poor game design.

They should have been thinking along the lines of D&D playable classes or Gauntlet II arcade game: "I'm going as the Barbarian!" (red barbarian enters the game) "Me too!" (blue barbarian enters) Players should be able to select any of the generic character classes (Wizard, Elf, Dwarf, or Barbarian) to generate their adventuring party, and they could have easily added more playable classes or races such as gnome, halfling, thief, cleric or even bard to choose from, but they didn't. Instead they gave us bizzarre individual personalities that don't fit well into HeroQuest and certainly aren't new playable generic class types.

I absolutely agree. You could add a Vampire to the group, but not Dracula.

The original characters are generic to the point where you can add personality and preferences to them. The Elf might be good with a sword, but the player may prefer a crossbow, so the Elf is better at archery.
The Barbarian may prefer a Broadsword and a shield instead of a Battle Axe. So maybe he finds a sword more fluid with his movement (although the actual reason is the defense dice), you can write it into his story.

A Knight or an Orc or even an Alchemist would be doable.
But the Halfling Warlock and an Orc Bard are way too specific to the point that their backstories are already half written. They're DnD characters written by someone else so it's very difficult for someone to even want to project a persona onto them.
A Human or Elven Druid has an understandable flow to it, but I'd have to reject it if someone was trying to put forth a Dwarven Druid.