Weapon Strengths apart from +1D or -1D

[Count Mohawk]

What do you think about giving a certain equipment permanent bonuses? Like, "this armour gives you 2 defend dices and the first skull roll of your enemy is ignored"?
It is stronger than two dices.

Indeed. In fact, outright cancelling one skull of damage is stronger, on average, than rolling an additional two Defend dice. A weaker version of this effect would be "Monsters roll one fewer Attack dice when attacking you while you wear this armor (minimum 1 Attack die)."
For weapons, the reverse would be "Monsters roll one fewer Defend dice when defending against attacks from this weapon" and on occasion, "Whenever you damage a monster with this weapon, that monster loses one additional Body Point." (I also have an expensive stiletto-knife which reduces enemy Defend dice by two in my custom armory.)

[sajungzak]

You'd have to have some really tough monsters to balance, but that could work.
Like a rapier with 2 AD. The equipment card could read something like, "With this weapon, a hero can make two attacks against the same target in rapid succession. The second attack is so fast that the target has no time to defend. Requires at least 3 Mind Points to wield. May not be used by the Wizard."
But even that's probably overpowered. That's why I like to keep it simple.
Or perhaps a beefed up heroic brew called berserker's shine that gives double attacks with no chance to defend the second until the user suffers damage.

[Anderas]

It could be a nice house rule for the Chaos Warriors; representing their armor. But you're right, maybe cancelling one attack dice is less overpowered. Here we are, back to +1D or -1D

I just read something about a "negative reroll" somewhere else in this forum (I think it was "Gauging interest in a spiritual sucessor of HQ").
You force to reroll a sucessfully rolled skull. It could be interesting. I think this is a lot stronger than cancelling one attack dice before rolling; but less strong than cancelling a skull right away.

Whereas, if a Hero Weapon cancels one defend dice of the monsters, it is not a very strong bonus. A single monster defensive dice is more or less worthless, so it doesn't change a lot to cancel one of them. This is a really nice and very small bonus.

[Daedalus]

I am thinking a lot of late, how one could give the Heroes and Monsters a Bonus or Malus apart from giving them an extra Dice or removing a Dice....

...Well, all the solutions have their drawbacks. What System are you preferring and why (or none of these - then, which instead?)

Another tact to approach the problem for Heroes is with gold coin cost. The NA Wizard can indirectly be given a bonus by reducing "May not be used by the Wizard" on the shortsword text down to "This weapon costs triple for the Wizard." Now 2 Attack Dice are available before Quest 12 and losing the Wizard's Staff with a Hero death isn't as crippling. Other Heroes can still maintain their attack progression superiority with their own weapon purchases ahead of the Wizard's new buff.

From the other direction, the battle axe can include "This weapon costs double for the Elf," and the longsword can list "This weapon costs double for the Dwarf." Delaying acquistition adds thematic spin for the Heroes and lets the Barbarian shine longer as a weapon leader. Added cost for weapons not suited to particular Heroes can be explained through prolonged training expense.

I just read something about a "negative reroll" somewhere else in this forum (I think it was "Gauging interest in a spiritual sucessor of HQ").
You force to reroll a sucessfully rolled skull. It could be interesting. I think this is a lot stronger than cancelling one attack dice before rolling; but less strong than cancelling a skull right away.

Yep, that's the thread. A negative reroll works great against a combat die as a general equalizer for both Heroes and monsters due to their differing Defend Dice. Say you want a table (furniture) to provide cover advantage against crossbow fire. If a bonus is set at +1 DD, a Hero gets more advantage (2 in 6 defend bonus) than a monster (1 in 6 defend bonus). If instead the table penalizes a crossbow attack with a reroll for one successful skull, both the monster and the Hero have an equally-lessened chance of being hit.

[slev]

From the other direction, the battle axe can include "This weapon costs double for the Elf," and the longsword can list "This weapon costs double for the Dwarf." Delaying acquistition adds thematic spin for the Heroes and lets the Barbarian shine longer as a weapon leader. Added cost for weapons not suited to particular Heroes can be explained through prolonged training expense.

Mechanically, it is easier to make a clone of the weapon, with a slightly different name, the increased cost, and the removed restriction.

So, in addition to the Shortsword, you have, say, an Epee, which anyone can use and has the same stats as the Shortsword, but the Wizard CAN use it. Nobody else will bother with it, but it doesn't throw up rules questions about who can use what weapons.

[cynthialee]

Call it a "Dainty City Boy Sword" and no one but the Wizard would even touch the thing.

[cornixt]

Mechanically, it is easier to make a clone of the weapon, with a slightly different name, the increased cost, and the removed restriction.

Definitely. It makes the list of equipment bigger, but it would be so much easier to deal with when there is limited space for text on cards.

[Anderas]

I agree. If clauses on gaming cards for 7 year old people aren't good ideas. Two cards instead, even add to the RPG feeling as the special version is a "Rare seldom to be seen" weapon and "I have the honor of wearing it".

We have a whole lot of Ideas not do change the weapon strengths differently from +1D or -1D!

- positive reroll one dice of one
: half a dice more.
a third of a dice more

- positive reroll one out of two.
: 75% of a dice more.
: very close to a full dice more

- negative reroll of one successful dice
it's like removing 1.5 dice (you need 2 dices for one skull, but then you remove the success and have a 50% chance to get it back
it's like removing 2.67 dice

- remove one successful dice
it's like removing two dice;
it's like removing three dice
could be a monster ability - for having a strong Boss Monster without ridiculous stats


- remove a defense dice on Monster's side
its like having 1/6 dice more - so far the weakest bonus

[Daedalus]

From the other direction, the battle axe can include "This weapon costs double for the Elf," and the longsword can list "This weapon costs double for the Dwarf." Delaying acquistition adds thematic spin for the Heroes and lets the Barbarian shine longer as a weapon leader. Added cost for weapons not suited to particular Heroes can be explained through prolonged training expense.

Mechanically, it is easier to make a clone of the weapon, with a slightly different name, the increased cost, and the removed restriction.

So, in addition to the Shortsword, you have, say, an Epee, which anyone can use and has the same stats as the Shortsword, but the Wizard CAN use it. Nobody else will bother with it, but it doesn't throw up rules questions about who can use what weapons.

True, that is a valid approach. I'd say swapping in variety with a limited number of equipment cards is a good idea. Yet, I'm for sticking to a method that doesn't introduce redundant weapon effects. All weapons that include the May not be used by the Wizard text already set up rules questions about who can use them. Swapping the original shortsword prohibition for a cost penalty adds no more complication, in my opinion (unless you include a resale rule.)

The quoted weapons for the Elf and Dwarf are a different matter. As both the battle axe and longsword are only prohibited for the Wizard, there isn't any restriction to remove that affects the intended Hero. An Elf will still purchase a battle axe instead of a more expensive Elf-pole. Either the cost increase must be added to a battle axe for the Elf, or the battle axe must have May not be used by either the Elf or Wizard added.

While EU players need not share my concern, each new weapon added to a US-style Armory board requires new space. That means more searching about and reading for each entry. I'd prefer to minimize that and reserve limited space for new weapons that possessed entirely new characteristics.

Mechanically, it is easier to make a clone of the weapon, with a slightly different name, the increased cost, and the removed restriction.

Definitely. It makes the list of equipment bigger, but it would be so much easier to deal with when there is limited space for text on cards.

I dunno. The most crowded card is the spear, which features one line of text more than the battle axe. Sjeng's longsword EU card worked out with the same number of lines as the standard battle axe card. Adding a class-specific cost would only add one line and fit the same as the spear card, overall.

I agree. If clauses on gaming cards for 7 year old people aren't good ideas. Two cards instead, even add to the RPG feeling as the special version is a "Rare seldom to be seen" weapon and "I have the honor of wearing it".

Yeah, better keep it vanilla HQ for the tots. I think the RPG feeling is a great reason to make a special (clone) version. It would work well with a limited number of equipment cards or as a found Quest treasure.

[cynthialee]

I think a complete RPG could be crafted from the core HQ rules. Keep the cards, they are a neat addition.
Add in a Dexterity attribute and it could work rather well.
I could see such a game getting into the 10 dice or more for an attack or defense at higher levels, but I am cool with that, dice cups are available.