by fentum
I played two intro games and had a blast as per the brief review I posted last week.I read Shnar's well balanced piece and it worried me. Two things that I had thought of as slight issues may, in fact, be a bit more serious.
1. Ko-revive-ko
When I played, each player ran two heroes. My cleric took all the wrath of the OL. this we found amusing. BUT if the cleric had been my only character, getting knocked out every turn may have gotten old very quickly. After the first ko, the way revive works leaves the newly revived hero a very soft target.
2. Who is the best fighter?
Not really the real question, more like, is there emough differential? In my review, I wrote that the heroes assumed natural roles. That was true, but I also raised the issue that the knight may be a poor melee damage guy. In the replies to Shnar's, someone points out that the thief was the best melee character. Now I think about it, that s how it felt to me. Not specifically the thief. Just a feeling that all characters were very similar in mechanical effect, other than their heroic feat. Roll two dice for attacks, roll one dice for defence. Yes the attack dice are different colours, but the more I think back, the more worried I get.
Should I be worried?