Monster's defend dice

[Bareheaded Warrior]

Black shields are a critical hit, so if you roll a black shield when attacking you get the same as 2 skulls, if your defending and you roll a black shield, it counts as 2 white shields.

Tried that but if you are playing EU rules then this boosts the Monsters too much as their extra skulls cost the Heroes BP but the Heroes extra skulls tend to be wasted on overkills on Monsters that have only 1 BP. I found that replacing the Black Shield with an extra Skull did the job and keeps it simple.

[Lemmeron]

My family played all the way through keller's keep and return of the witchlord and a couple of the later original quests with all monsters defending with blue dice - ie white shields on standard combat dice.

There were 3 heroes - dwarf, elf and wizard - so no barbarian and they still had little trouble completing these quests.

My equipment is a little different than the standard gear, but alot of the time it was comparable.

So for us, it was a good change that made it less boring all round. It is good when heroes actually have epic fights at times that last more than 1-3 rolls

[sajungzak]

Cool. I thought it worked really well. I (the fire mage) was able to use all the chaos spells which is nice.
It's good to hear about examples in which all monsters defending with white shields or blue dice into the expansions. That's what I was wondering. I'm not worried about it being overpowered in fan made quests, I expect it to be.

[Stoner81]

For my own rules I have expanded the amount of Body Points monsters have but I might make it so that Chaos Warriors and Gargoyles (and monsters of similar power) defend with White shields and then all named monsters (bosses) defend using both White and Black. I am going to wait and see how my new monster stats pan out first though.

Stoner81.

[mitchiemasha]

On another tip... We have black shield as weapon damage... But, I've come to realise how impossible it is to roll 3 black shields on the combat dice, never mind 4 for even more spruced up heroes.

[sajungzak]

Overdue update:
The heroes finally completed all the base quests with monsters defending with white shields. It took a long time because it's hard to get a group together, not because it was too hard.
The players weren't always the same but they were always seasoned board gamers. Hardly ever did a player have any rpg experience, yet there were only a handful of hero deaths in the whole play through.

Defending with white shields does not have a very noticeable impact on monsters with 3 or fewer defend dice, but four or more could occasionally mean a protracted encounter. This is not necessarily bad though because Zargon should want those monsters to last a bit longer...

In the end I will continue to implement this house rule, except when playing with children (or newbs). I'm also pretty sure the equipment should cost more, but that's for another time.

[cynthialee]

Defend on White Shields is a great upgrade to monsters. I find it tends to really increase difficulty of some quests to almost undoable. It does not make the average dungeon undoable though. The average dungeon becomes a true challenge. Defend on Black Shields is way to easy mode for my players. They blow through those monsters with ease and feel unchallenged. Not fun. Now there are a few dungeons with massive amounts of mobs that can kill parties that mess up by the book. For those dungeons I highly recommend the heroes are equipped from the Emperors Armory.
It certainly keeps the heroes close to each other when they crawl one of my Champion level dungeons.

{Major upgrade to Boss Monsters and Named Villains: Defends on ALL shields.}

[Bareheaded Warrior]

This is a very interesting topic and I wanted to get some data to support the discussion so I have used data from the Endurance Calculator Tool

So what are we trying to achieve with the changes?

1. The game is too easy for the Heroes, we want to make the monsters 'harder' to make it more of a challenge
2. However we don't want to significantly extend the 'endurance' of monsters, how long they can last under attack, especially the more numerous ones, as this will lengthen combat and drag out the game.

What is 'significantly' and which monsters?

I have adopted the loose categorisations for monsters as follows:

• Common/Low-Level Monsters - Goblin, Orc, Skeleton, Zombie - these are the monsters that you typically face a total of perhaps ~20 per Quest
• Uncommon/Mid-Level Monsters - Fimir, Mummy, Dread Warrior - typically a total of perhaps ~5 per Quest
• Rare/High-Level Monsters - Gargoyle, Bosses - typically ~1 per Quest

This is based on KK/ROTWL quests, GS is a little different as our Heroes start out with only an average of 2AD so a mid-level monster like a Dread Warrior may play the role of a Boss - like Gulthor - "a group of monsters led by a Chaos Warrior"

Note: For the purposes of this topic I'm using 3AD as a typical Hero attack.

In terms of what is a significant difference I have used the following as a guide:

• A "swing" of less than 20% is acceptable for low level monsters
• A "swing" of around 20-25% is acceptable for mid level monsters
• A "swing" of 25%+ is acceptable for high level monsters

The Comparison

Looking at the attached chart, focussing for the moment on the green line, this shows how many attack rounds an Orc or Skeleton is likely to last before being killed by a 3AD attacker. I've used the Orc and Skeleton as they have the same defence properties 2DD and 1BP and between them are the most common monsters in Greenskin and Undead dungeons respectively.

If you compare that green line with the Orange line, you can see that moving these monsters from Black Shield to White Shield defence (purely that change) does make a significant difference for low level monsters.

If you compare the deeper blue line (representing the Dread Warrior on Black Shield Defend) with the grey line (representing the Dread Warrior on WHite Shield Defend) then you can clearly see that is extended out hugely.

So on the basis of that, for me, Monsters Defend on White Shields is a no!

White Shield Defence with Black Shields as Extra Skull

However, if you take it a step further and choose to allow monsters to defend on white shields, and then use the now available Black Shield "The Walrus" to act as an extra Skull, then something very interesting occurs.

Compare the Orc/Skeleton Black Shield Defend (green line) with the same monsters White Shield Defend with Black Shield as extra Skull (yellow line) and you will see that the two lines corelate closely

Again compare the Chaos/Dread Warrior Black Shield Defend (Deeper Blue) with the same monster using White Shield Defend with Black Shield as Extra Skull (Lighter Blue) then these two lines also closely match

If the two pairs are so similar then we have met our second target, but what about our first, if the monsters last the same amount of time then how have we made the game harder...

The bonus of an extra skull on the attack dice for Heroes is pretty much neutralised by the doubled defence of the monsters on white shields, but as the Heroes were using White Shields for defence as standard, the monsters get a bonus +33% of skulls on all their attacks!

This still does leave an outstanding question for me, if the former Black Shield is now just another Skull, then do we just put a Skull sticker over it on our dice (no) or give it a special property over and above just being another skull (yes) but I've run out of time and space to post that for now.

[Bareheaded Warrior]

Utilising the symbol formerly known as the Black Shield, now an extra Skull but needs to have a difference (otherwise why isn't it just another skull icon?)

Door blocking is one of the main flaws of HQ, Heroes pick up this tactic early on, and it can be a game breaker for Zargon, hence the many discussions around Push Back rules

In this topic Houserule: Push Back the following suggestion was made

When attacking an enemy on an adjacent square and the attack roll shows 2 or more skulls then the attacker may choose to push the defender back one square onto any square that the defender could validly move to with a single point of movement, if there are no valid squares then the attacker may exchange the squares occupied by the attacking and defending figures. If the attacker chooses to push back, then they must move into the now unoccupied square. If the attack kills the enemy, then the pushback isn’t relevant but the option to follow up into the now unoccupied square remains.

Notes:
• Larger monsters require 3 skulls to be rolled to push them back
• You cannot push back a monster that is in a pit
• You cannot push back a monster if you are in a pit

Using that rule above the odds of pushback - for Heroes and most monsters, is:

1AD = 0%
2AD = 25%
3AD = 50%
4AD = 68.75%
5AD = 81.25%

But lets utilise our Black Shields, both as an extra skull and the indicator of a push back, say you need at least 1 to push back as standard

1AD = 16.67%
2AD = 30.56%
3AD = 42.14%
4AD = 51.78%
5AD = 59.82%

I prefer the second option, increased chances compared to the original at lower AD levels, great for pushing Heroes back when they attempt to door block, but a gentler curve when it comes to the higher AD attacks, so we aren't guaranteeing push back for the big attackers

When attacking an enemy on an adjacent square and the attack roll shows at least one black skull then the attacker may choose to push the defender back one square onto any square that the defender could validly move to with a single point of movement, if there are no valid squares then the attacker may exchange the squares occupied by the attacking and defending figures. If the attacker chooses to push back, then they must move into the now unoccupied square. If the attack kills the enemy, then the pushback isn’t relevant but the option to follow up into the now unoccupied square remains.

Notes:
• Larger monsters require at least two black skulls to push them back (indicated with the special ability "Rock Solid")
• You cannot push back a monster that is in a pit
• You cannot push back a monster if you are in a pit

[Onan]

I have also thought about changing the monsters' defense to white shields, simply for rule aesthetics. I didn't understand why the rules treat defense differently for heroes and monsters for apparently no reason, and I always prefer the simpler solution of a unified handling. But after thinking about it for a good while I'm happy with the combat system as is. Here is my chain of thoughts

One challenge of dungeon crawl games and also adventure books like Lone Wolf or Fighting Fantasy is to make it possible that a single hero or a small group takes out about 20 monsters. The monsters should feel like a challenge. You would not be proud if you defeated 20 weak creatures. But then with fair rules, how is it possible that you have a good chance of defeating 20 equal foes?

In all these games and books they use monsters with equal or better stats than the heroes to make them look like a challenge, and then somehow hide the fact that the heroes are indeed much stronger. In HeroQuest the Orcs have the same fighting stats as the barbarian, and yet you defeat dozens of them!

The most common way to achieve this is to use body points. When playing Fighting Fantasy, have you ever wondered why your hero is such a tank compared to the monsters? In HeroQuest, why does the wizard have more body points than the gargoyle? Because else the monsters would win. The European version does a great job hiding this "cheat" by giving all monsters 1 body point. The body point system is not used for monsters, so the players are not hinted at their advantage.

Another way is to use an assymmetric combat system. In Lone Wolf you roll a D10 and look up the result on a table. The table is quite complicated, so at first glance you don't see that the Lone Wolf gets an advantage of about +6 on his combat strength compared to the enemies. You're proud to defeat the Gourgaz with combat strength 20. A fair combat table and a Gourgaz with combat strength 14 would not feel as heroic. In HeroQuest the monsters seem to have a fair chance of blocking when looking at their stats, but in fact the black shields come rarely. So the black shield defense is used to give the monsters good looking stats with a weak effect.

In HeroQuest the heroes have another advantage, this time without any unfair rules: They always have the initiative. So when working together, they are more effective. The "rolling dice for movement" rule adds a little risk to the initiative, which I think is a great mechanism. The advantage of the initiative comes from the fact that some monsters are defeated before they can act. To make this work, a hero's attack needs a good chance of taking out a monster. So the one body point + black shield defense rules boost the heroes' initiative advantage.

In HeroQuest all these rules work perfectly together, up to the point when the heroes start buying weapons. This is because of HeroQuest's binomial distribution combat system. Let's call a result of 2 or more skulls a "critical hit", short crit. The 1 body point + black shield defense rules make it very unlikely for a monster to survive a crit, no matter its defense stats. In DnD like D20 systems the crit chances don't increase automatically with the hero's combat strength. In HeroQuest they do: 1 attack die has 0% chance of a crit, 2 AD have 25%, 3 AD have 50%, 4 AD even 69%. With heroes of 3/2/2/1 AD the most probable attack result is a single skull, and you feel the difference between a skeleton and a zombie in defense. With 4/4/4/3 AD the most probable attack result is a crit, making the monsters' defense stats pointless.

At this point Zargon feels the need to fix things. The first thing to do is to use more monsters per room. This makes the game longer in total, and also means you will always get punished for a rush because the monsters are so many. They did this in KK and RotWL: some rooms have 8+ monsters. But usually these rooms are meant to make the heroes flee, not to rush, so it is fine. But don't use this fix for regular rooms unless you like door fights!

The next thing to do is give the monsters body points, like the US edition. While this balances things a bit, it also directs the players' attention to monster body points, making it harder for them to ignore the fact that they have the unfair body points advantage over the monsters, which gives a less heroic feeling to defeating monsters.

The next thing to fix is the black shield defense as suggested here. With less equipped heroes this needs a fix to reduce the "half-life" of the monsters. Bareheaded Warrior found a good fix by counting the black shield as a skull, resulting in about the same survival chances for the monsters. But this fix leads to a higher damage output of the monsters, making rushes riskier for less equipped heroes: The success chances of the rush are about equal, but the damage on failure is higher. I have to say I really like HeroQuest's black shield trick of creating a hidden advantage for the heroes and wouldn't change it.

Most of the time we play a random mission from GS, KK or RotWL with no equipment. For GS we use the maps from the remake (more monsters), but EU stats (1BP). I have to say that all the maps have the right difficulty when the heroes don't have equipment (except for RotWL M1). For younger players the maps from the European GS have the right difficulty.

So my suggestion is to step back and look at the root cause of the problems: The weapons from the armory. I think there is a narrow band of hero stats where the beauty of HeroQuest's combat system really shines. Permanently buffing the heroes' attack leads to games that are either too easy, or dragging because of stronger or more monsters. It also evens out the differences between the heroes, making them all feel the same, except for the poor wizard. And then there is the least heroic weapon: the crossbow, that allows you to fight from the open door like a wizard, but with unlimited ammo, turning the wizard into a wandering healing potion.

I guess many players would not like to do without the armory. Where is the feeling of progression without the armory? The reduced European armory with only 1 battle axe and crossbow would be a starting point. With 4/3/3/2 AD there is still challenge. The equipment costs and quest rewards should be designed in a way that this point is reached towards the end of the campaign. And I would expect new campaigns to be designed for a team of fresh heroes.