do others feel Decent is heavily balanced in favour of the overlord player?

Having played most of the levels and 2 expansions (well darkness and altar despair), I've hardly won a level playing 4 heroes.

it seems that one bad run of luck and its game over, so it appears one needs good luck to win a level, or one needs to know the level and pick the right heroes for the task. I really don't think I'm doing anything stupid.

I would suggest monster cards should be picked according to the number of heroes rather than the number of players, so 4 heroes+overlord = monster numbers 4 rather than 5, also overlord gets threat tokens according to number of heroes, not players. and maybe increasing the 300 coins to start with.

any thoughts?

Headspin said:

Generally, no. Different quests vary in difficulty, with some being very difficult for the heroes and others being quite easy.
I assume when you say 'level' you mean 'quest' (levels are involved in the Advanced Campaigns, but you don't appear to be discussing those).

The monster cards have very little impact really. Most monsters die with a single attack even with the 5 player cards, so it makes relatively little difference which cards you use.

Threat tokens are according to the number of heroes, not players.
DJitD pg9
Step 1: Collect Threat and Draw Cards
The overlord player collects one threat token for every hero, and then draws two cards from the top of the overlord deck.

In general, you don't have to be doing anything 'stupid' to not do very well as the heroes. It is more often simply a case of not having understood the game and the good tactics very well. There are a few decent guides for tactics etc around on BGG I think. A few of key points:
i) Descent is a race. Every turn the OL gets fresh resources and the heroes are limited to what is on the board. The faster the heroes get through the quest the less OL resources they will have faced and the better chance they have of winning.
ii) Descent is not an exercise in dungeon cleaning. It is not a requirement to clear the dungeon of all monsters. There is a job to do (usually kill the main boss) so keep focus on that. If you get bogged down trying to kill every monster then the OL will just laugh at you (those monsters are entirely expendable) and eventually will win.
iii) Fatigue is awesome. Use it when you are just short of killing a monster by adding dice to an attack after the roll. That saves an entire half-turn! Use it to move into better position when attacking a lot (especially when battling). Use it to help you keep ahead of rearward monsters (especially being 6 spaces from beastmen etc). Fatigue potions are the best potions by an enormous distance.
iv) Anti-spawn positioning is very important. It should be rare indeed for the OL to be able to attack with melee creatures the same turn he spawned them.
v) Don't open up new areas with the last hero to move, only with the first. That way you can clear most of the monsters in the new area before they act.
vi) use the glyphs. Slow heroes don't have to run the entire dungeon. A runner can sprint ahead and activate the next glyph while the slow tank goes to town. Next turn the tank can come out of the forward glyph for a single MP, ready for action.
vii) loot chests as early as possible (another use for runners sprinting ahead). Chest treasures get distributed immediately and might help the other heroes actions later in the same turn.

You probably know some or all of these (and I've probably missed something out) but these are very basic strategic/tactical fundamentals for the heroes.

For some of the harder quests, try a draw three choose one method of selecting the hero party (the Advanced Campaign method). It means that the heroes can get a more balanced selection without being too overpowered and without seeing the same heroes all the time. A balanced hero party with a tank/warrior, mage, ranged specialist and runner is much stronger than most other parties. Not only do you have the resources to meet every challenge but you also are able to use pretty much every treasure you find to it's best potential.

AoD and WoD generally made the game harder for the heroes (the base set was a little in their favour). If you are having trouble, get ToI as well. It adds a new and powerful mechanic to the heroes - Feats. The quests are a little bit easier too, I think. The OL gets some cool new toys, but the balance swings back towards the heroes a bit more.

And after all that? The OL should still win about half the time!

Headspin said:

Two things jump out at me from this post.

Firstly, WoD and AoD both boosted the OL's power significantly while giving the heroes relatively less. The heroes did get some new toys, but it was mostly about the OL for both of those expansions. Thus it unsurprising that the OL seems powerful in your games. That said, the heroes (especially 4 of them) should still be able to hold their own in those dungeons, but they need to be efficient. It isn't just about not doing anything stupid, you have to be smart. Stay focused, don't go after decoy treasures that are out of your way, basically make sure everything you do is geared towards advancing through the level.

Secondly, as Corbon said, the difference between monsters at "4 player" level and "5 player" level is not that huge. I think it's literally 1 HP difference on all monsters. That should not be posing such a huge problem for you if you're playing wisely. For that matter, the difference between monsters at "2 player" and "5 player" isn't really that much - the game doesn't actually scale as much as it'd like to.

I agree that the game is generally unbalanced in favour of the overlord player.

While I can't disagree with much of what Corbon has said, nor the tactics he suggests, the reality of deploying those tactics is very different and difficult in many situations.

That is my experience, having played a ~200 hours, both sides, RTL and Vanilla, expansions or not.

My suggestion for achieving the most balance (and still remain in the confines of a "set") would be to play with just JitD. In my experience, many games have been adversely affected by the volatility of expansion elements like Danger! and Black Order, which are drastically more powerful than most overlord cards.

Headspin said:

The bolded part is how the game is supposed to work. If you're giving the OL 5 threat per turn when there's 4 heroes, he's getting too much. That could be part of your problem, as that 1 threat can build up over time (an extra spawn every 3-4 turns, not having to discard as much in order to play good cards, etc.).

Do you typically play with the same person being the overlord? If so, switch things up a bit. I've seen people's play as heroes improve after they've taken a turn as the overlord as they get a much better feel for what the OL cards do and what strategies are likely to be employed against them.

phelanward said:

Meaning no offense, but which of Corbon's suggested tactics are you referring to when you say it's difficult to deploy them? Everything Corbon said strikes me as common behaviour for successful heroes in our games, it's all about keeping yourselves focused on the end goal. If you're having difficulty spotting when to use such tactics, perhaps we forumites can help your heroes improve their game by showing you how to use those strategies more efficiently.

Steve-O:

For example, there are many maps where eliminating effective spawning points is impossible for the heroes- that unless the heroes literally do not progress, the overlord will always be able to spawn a BWP and engage the heroes immediately. Similarly, there are certain linear dungeons where running away from monsters instead of fighting them is a very valid tactic. There are certain dungeons where such a move is completely devastating for the heroes (e.g. they are running into a dead-end; or unbeknownst to them, one of the monsters is holding a rune-key). I don't question the validity of the general advice, but circumstances are usually more complicated than theory.

Also worth mentioning is the fact that many of these tactics are mutually exclusive. For example, saying "Don't open up new areas with the last hero to move, only the first" sounds good in a theoretical world, but how does might that interact with the maxim of "Descent is a race" ? If the area is cleared by the end of the first hero's move, then should the second-hero-to move open the door? Should the third-hero-to-move open the door if the fourth hero's turn will be utterly wasted otherwise? And while you're fretting about whether your runner should go for the chest or the glyph (both are suggested, consecutively) a single Crushing Block or Paralyzing Gas is often all it takes to turn that runner from "The Guy Who Gets The Stuff" to "Monster Food", and there you go: the opening of new area has suddenly been irrevocably derailed.

The larger point is that most of the heroes' good tactics are very powerful, but very fragile: there is very little middle-ground between a well-executed move and a disaster- all it takes is a clever Spiked Pit, Gust of Wind, Mimic, Dark Glyph, Crushing Blow, Dark Charm- and it is the Overlord who is privy to all those moves. Even a couple successful Undying rolls, or a string of misses at the wrong time can utterly thwart the heroes' position. While the Overlord's victory rarely hangs on the execution of a certain move, the heroes' may often find themselves in such a place.

Understand, I don't think that anything suggested so far is bad, nor I am making value judgments between those choices. They're all valid suggestions, and all should be considered while playing. I'm merely pointing out that there are many situations where certain of these tactics are completely useless, and none of them are a sure thing. If your response is "You're just not good enough at playing the heroes" than my response would be "You've just never played against a really good overlord".

-pw

phelanward said:

The response was never "you're just not good enough at playing the heroes". There were just some general tips on playing them for someone that was having trouble. If you aren't smart enough to understand in the first place that they are general tips, and circumstances are always complicated, then the chances are you will never be good enough at playing the heroes. (note, general 'you' not specific 'you').

I don't agree that any of the tactical guides are mutually exclusive - unless you are foolish enough to take general tactical guides and make them unbreakable rules. For example, opening the door with the first hero rather than the last combining with Descent being a race - well even in a race you have to pace yourself at times!
Ok, just for you, I'll rephrase the opening the door thing. "Never open a door into a new area unless you have the capability to act on what you see in the new area in the same turn." General speaking , that means not the last hero, and most of the time not the third hero either.
OTOH if your last hero is a runner with full fatigue and a fatigue potion starting next to the door and all your other heroes are in town, then by all means open the door and hope there is a glyph within your sprinting range. It's always conditional...

To your larger point, I would say that if you find spiked pits and crushing blows consistently screwing you up then you are pushing too hard - always leave a little something in reserve as cover for these events. Having a fatigue potion in hand and not using the last fatigue is often a better plan than stretching your utmost... but of course, it's all conditional.

And as to your response to the response never made, the equal response is that "perhaps we have played against really good OL's and are consequently able to refine the general hero tactics correspondingly, as needed"?
Or perhaps not - maybe you are right and in our groups the skills all go one way (hero-ing) and not the other (OL-ing).

Either way, we rarely find that an early victory hangs by a thread either way.
Victory is usually late, and victory for either side usually hangs on a single action. The fact that it is usually a hero action is only natural since so much more happens during a hero action - more damage, more attacks, trap opportunities, critical misses that leave the hero exposed to overwhelming counterattacks...

Actually, victory usually hangs on whether the OL got Evil Genius in play early enough or not!

phelanward said:

Odd, our hero parties rarely have difficulty covering all the spawn points close enough to prevent a BWP from attacking the same turn it appears. Yes, there are some dungeons where it's harder to do so, but that just means you have to adjust your tactics in that dungeon. Most of the time it isn't an issue.

Monsters that are carrying special items like rune keys are usually pretty obvious in my experience. If the "read out loud" text doesn't outright say this monster has a runekey it usually at least gives a couple hints. Also, since the entire map gets set up at the start, it's usually pretty easy to spot dead ends before you run into them. Our heroes generally don't head towards a dead end unless they have no other choice.

phelanward said:

If the first hero can open the door and clear the area in a single turn (generally only possible with Gold weapons) and if the other three heroes can allr each the next door with enough actions left to do something useful, then sure #2 can open the next door. In general this isn't going to be the case, though. Either because the areas are too big to cross in a single turn without running (and thus not having an attack for the second area you reveal) or because it's unlikely that a single hero with town or copper items will be able to clear an entire area by himself. The reason we say "don't open a door with the fourth hero" is because if you reveal a new area with the last hero to act, you're giving the OL more room to spawn and more monsters to act with on his turn, which is just silly.

It's true that we say Descent is a race, and it's true that we say everything you do should be a step toward the ultimate goal, but this game is also heavily tactical. If you just run for the end mindlessly you're going to overwhelm yourself with monsters by revealing too much too soon. To succeed you want to advance as quickly as you can while minimizing the OL's ability to stop you. ie: covering all spawn points close to where the heroes are, don't open new areas until the entire force of the hero party can be brought to bear on whatever's inside, etc.

phelanward said:

It is true that there is no perfect, infallable strategy that will let the heroes win every time. Descent is a competition. A true battle where either side has a serious chance of winning. It is not HeroQuest where the good guys "ought" to have a statistical predilection for victory. If both the heroes and the OL are playing their very best then the heroes should be winning half the time. That means the OL is winning the other half, mind you. If you think the suggestions we're giving are meant to help the heroes win every time, then please understand that is not the case. The only way the heroes will win every game is if the OL lets them win. That is by design, that is how it should be (not that the OL should be letting the heroes win, mind you.)

I don't dispute that the OL has all sorts of cards for every occasion. Past a certain point you basically just have to hope the OL doesn't have that one trap card that can foil your plans. The dungeon is the OL's turf and he's in control. The heroes are the outsiders who are invading. As I said before, victory is not assured, but if you follow the suggestions Corbon gave, it can seriously improve the heroes' chance of success.

phelanward said:

It was never my intention to suggest you were playing badly. It just seems like you're writing off perfectly good strategies because they don't work in every possible imaginable scenario. There's an old military saying: "no plan survives contact with the enemy." The heroes definitely need to be flexible and adapt to the particualr situation in any given dungeon. These suggestions are general guidelines. Use them when you can, discard them when you can't. In my persoanl experience, however, most of these suggestions are applicable to most dungeons, at least in part if not in whole.

In general, I also believe that the scales are tipped in the overlord's favor.

The main reason is probably that the overlord does not have to discuss or coordinate his tactics with any other player. Different opinions, different skill levles and the interest for improving your own character, as well as *having* to discuss (revealing intentions to the OL) makes heroes less effective.

We experimented quite extensively with balancing the non-campaign game and made a single change that really worked well:

Every time a hero gets to draw some card (including starting character, starting skill etc.) he always draws two and picks one.

If you want to further decrease the power of the overlord:

Remove evil genius from the deck - to this seems about the single overpowerd card

Do not use cursed glyphs of tranportation. Especially the green one is very tough, especially on levels with few glyphs.

Remove the 8 Life characters and some of the more crappy skills from the deck, although the "take two, pick one" option should take care of that in most cases.

For beginner players, we found it quite helpful to:

a) have a inexperience player run the OL, if he is up to the bookkeeping part - OL generally is more forgiving to individual tactical mistakes, that way, both sides can have fun

b) lower the conquest values of the heroes by 1 Conquest marker. This is a very powerful change, but for "soft" players, this can be the right changes.

Also in the end, it is worth reminding that Descent is NOT an RPG - it is perfectly ok for the OL to trash the Heroes if they play badly...

Jeez, guys... you kinda missed the point.

The reason I brought up so many different pulling factors is to show that Descent theory is always easier to execute than Descent practice, not to discuss the particular elements suggested. Any effective player will be on intimate terms with those tactics; of course they're all good things to keep in mind, and I have specifically avoided taking issue with any of them. In the most complimentary way possible, I'm sure we have very little to teach each other about strategy. I could argue point-by-point, bring up specific maps, specific heroes, whatever- but that's not what this discussion is about, and ultimately no one would be convinced of anything. But Corbon, Steve-O: Feel free to visit upstate NY and we can get down to some serious playing, and we can each show eachother how wrong we both are. I'll even provide comfortable accommodations.

This thread is about whether or not the game is balanced, and my informed opinion is that it is not. Not even close. The response prior to mine suggested "It is balanced, for these reasons" and my response is "It is imbalanced, for these reasons". I'm guessing we're all very sure of ourselves. But I was responding to the initial poster; he asked the question, let him read the responses and come to his own conclusions.

However, I would point out that to suggest that "If both the heroes and the OL are playing their best than the heroes should win half the time" is rather naive from an analytic perspective. I'm a little surprised that both of you (Corbon, and Mr. O) would both espouse this idea, since (if time spent on this forum is any indicator) you are both likely experienced gamers. Descent is vastly too complicated a game to properly balance. Given the different combinations of heroes, skills, treasures, and OL cards, it would literally take a lifetime of work to reasonably balance a single map, much less 60. It's simply a function of mathematics and the integration of so many different variables. In chess (one of the most balanced games conceivable) at an intermediate level, white wins 56% of the time. You're trying to tell me that Descent is better than that? I don't think so. I urge you to have no illusions about Fantasy Flight as a mystically beneficial force churning out games whose focus is quality and balance. It's simply a function of cost/benefit for FF to balance the game- balancing takes time and money, so they balance enough to where it isn't likely to affect sales. It can take years of casual playing to ascertain that a 2-sided game as a 60/40 win/loss ratio, and by that time, you've already payed the $50 to buy it. I would be exceedingly impressed if Descent had a 60/40 ratio for OL/Hero victory. My suspicion is that it's closer to 70/30.

To add a few things to the initial discussion on balance, I would like to point out that there is always a continuum between the integration of flavour, and balance. Generally, the more that flavourful elements are implemented into the design, the more imbalanced the design becomes. For this reason, abstract strategy games tend to be more balanced than fantasy games. The minute that you start integrating flavour ("There are spiders, so there should be webs as well!" or "What if there was a minotaur who could attack people by charging them?") things begin to get kooky. The reason that so many people interpret Descent as a dungeon-crawl is that it has an integration of flavour that is usually only associated with dungeon crawls. Starcraft is an example of game that has a very good integration of flavour and design, but it's the perfect example of the exception that proves the rule: Released in 1998, balance patches were still being updated as late as Sept 2009, and that's with data available on hundreds of millions of games played on battle.net.

The most important thing to realize here is that it's ok that it's not balanced, because it's still fun. There are plenty of imbalanced games that are fun. Whenever you buy a Descent expansion, you can't help but know that you're integrating more volatility to the experience, but the only question you have to ask yourself is how the your enjoyment of the game is affected. ('Is adding leaping gorillas to the mix going to make me have more fun or less fun?') Treachery cards are a good example (don't make me regret giving an example) because even though they add a strong imbalancing element, they're so frickin' cool!! Most people will play with Treachery if they can because concerns about balance don't interest them as much as dropping a sweeping, reaching, bashing, raging Ogre onto the face of the dumbstruck heroes. Balance issues are only frustrating for a player if he goes in with the assumption that the game is balanced. It's always fun to play as the underdog, because if you lose, your victory is that much more epic, and (as Glamdryn has shown me) epic is always an important word to keep around when playing Descent.

I'm happy to further discuss the interaction of balance, flavour, and game design. I'm marginally less interested in comparing the size our respective Descent-*****. This thread is an excellent place for the former. A private message is probably more appropriate for the latter, as I don't want to bog down this thread with too many large pictures.

-pw

phelanward said:

I am very sure that everything I've said is my own opinion. I'm equally sure yours is yours. I don't recall right or wrong ever being a part of this discussion. In my experience the Overlord and the Heroes are fairly equal in terms of victories. Everything else that's been brought up was an exploration of why the same doesn't appear to be the case in your games. If you want to stop talking about that, I'm more than happy to comply. I don't mean to pry where I'm not wanted.

Whether or not a game is balanced is highly subjective since pretty much everyone has a different definition of what "balance" is. Worse still, people's definitions tend to vary from one game to another as mechanics and goals change. I think the best definition of game balance I've heard was that "a game is balanced when everyone is complaining equally." What the author of that particular statement meant was that everyone is going to be rooting for the side they play in a given game, and will generally complain about advantages the other side has, perceived or otherwise.

I agree with you in that balance is irrelevant as long as everyone is having fun. During my time on these forums, I've seen people saying the OL is too powerful, and I've seen people saying the heroes are too powerful. In my own experience, each (non-Campaign) expansion has a way of giving one side or the other a new edge which tends to make victory that much easier for them at first. WoD and AoD both boosted the OL, ToI boosted the Heroes. In all cases, the play experience eventually returned to half and half after everyone playing got used to the new abilities presented in the given expansion. That's what I consider balanced, as far as Descent is concerned anyway.

We have fun regardless, so balance is not a huge concern for us. Every time someone pops up asking about why the game is so unfair in favour of one side or the other, however, it leads me to believe that they are not having fun (or at least not as much as they could be), and thus I am inclined to help that person explore ways they can bring things back to the middle. I suspect that's basically what Corbon was trying to do as well, and it's why we've been pushing the conversation towards things the heroes can do to achieve victory. We're not ignoring the subject of balance, we're just tyring to help the OP find a personal balance that allows him to continue having fun with the game.

I'm not trying to get into any kind of contest with you regarding ***** size, Descent-related or otherwise. I'd appreciate if you stopped trying to make it sound like I am. I'm stating my opinion, you're stating yours. Nobody is wrong and nobody's proving anything. We're just having a conversation about a game we all love.

Have a nice day. =)

thanks for all the responses. it seems my thinking was defective when i said "i don't think i'm doing anything stupid" since i had read the rules as giving the OL threat tokens according to the number of players rather than the number of heroes. its always worth re-reading the rules of any game after a few plays. when will i learn? perhaps after i get some glasses. the additional threat token does over burden the heroes in the later game, perhaps this has lead my heroes to ignore caution. I have favoured health potions over fatigue potions, perhaps its time to switch that around and see what happens. thanks again for the useful discussion. I definitely do think that the biggest flaw in the standard rules is a random draw for character cards, the suggested alternative of picking from a drawn selection is much better imo.

I had to laugh when i read that chess is supposed to be one of the most balanced games available. I mean both players have the same rules and figures (only white has advantage of first turn) I mean how can it be greatly imbalanced? If you look at balance that way every Starcraft Mirror Matchup is completely balanced as every player has 50% to win. But there are other things to balance than just win rat.

I think descent does not need to be balanced at 50/50 win rate. The big issue to me is that some elements of the same type are way imbalanced. E.g. some heroes are way, way stronger than other heroes. It's the same for monsters, OL cards, treachery cards, skill cards, treasures...

So often I see great balance issues just by random draws. You are right: descent is very difficult to balance. But often you realise that a hero is very imbalanced just by playing him once, the same for the other things I mentioned above. So I do not understand why FFG did not do a better job at balancing those single things. As said I do not expect everything to be completely but at least somehow balanced. One example is Evil Genius which can completely turn the tides whilst the other non treachery power cards (except maybe trapmaster) are just not worth to be played in 95% of times. How could FFG not see this? Furthermore you could probably throw away like 50% of treachery cards as nobody would (should) ever use them.

Another big thing is the rules. There is a rulebook for every expansions + FAQ + GloaQ. This is so much to read so you can likely overlook or misread (and likely you will misread some things even if you reread the rules some times) some things (or some rules are ambiguous). And it's almost impossible to look up rules while playing as it takes too much time. I would really really like a well written rulebook (and well written skills/heroes) with a good glossary. I read 2 boards regularly just to look out for questions and check if I did understand the rules correctly. Sometimes we have to discuss some rules which takes so much time and as there is no neutral referee it is so hard to find a good compromise. And the compromise is not necessary balanced. So often I think that everybody has other experience of balance as everybody has his own rules (at least at minor things). This could explain why some people think the OL is way overpowered and some people think the other way.

Headspin said:

Don't even remotely feel bad about missing stuff in the rules. I've been playing as OL and Hero for over three years now and I still have to look stuff up in the books or in the FAQ (and I'm one of the guys who edits the **** thing!). Descent has a very steep learning curve to it, and there are a number of confusing things in it.

Definitely give the draw three, pick one method a try as it makes much better parties.

Sorry to be bumping an old post but I haven't been on the forums for quite a while.

I agree that balance favours the OL but in a way that many overlook rather than individual cards or abilities although all the tactics suggest here I think are sound.

Please bear with me as I make some very broad generalisations. It's not knowing the quests that is the biggest factor. Almost every quest in the expansions has a "path to success" similar to the Soulbiter quest in JitD (I think the real reason for the ease of JitD is the quests) which basically means heroes can skip about 20-25% of many dungeons. This can often mean skipping rooms even though they maybe have copper treasure and/or a glyph with the goal in mind of getting to silver since it's such a big upgrade whereas copper improvement is minimal.

I would say that the balance in favour of the OL (more big generalisations) on the first play of a quest would be about 80% maybe more and although some might not like it much I think it's necessary for the long term playability of the game.

Basically I think all players should be going into the first 2 plays of a dungeon expecting to take a beating but making the final room on the third unless they make a very good run the first time and get to see how most rooms are set up.

Meh! Balance is for suckers!

So I recently purchases Descent: JitD after two years of wanting it. It's great, but in the future I'm worried about balance issues. I'm thinking, from the reviews I've read, that I'll keep it fairly balanced if I go with Well of Darkness and Tomb of Ice as my expansions. Thoughts?

Nickp said:

I have all the expansions and I think it's reasonably well balanced. Just don't go around making house rules at the of a hat because something "doesn't make sense." Play it as written. Try not to be too rules lawyery about it or you'll end up with debates like the one developing in the Dark Charm thread right now, but give precedence to the rules over logic where clear meanings are to be found.

When a new expansion gets added, it tends to throw things out of whack, but the balance returns once people learn how to handle the new situations the expansion added. WoD and AoD will make the OL look super cool for a few games, ToI will do the same for heroes. After you play with them for a few quests, the other team will come back swinging and everything will be fine.

If you want to get WoD and ToI so that one expansion is OL-pumping and the other is Hero-pumping, that sounds fine. I would, however, recommend adding them in one at a time so you don't miss rules by adding too much at once. Even if you buy them together, add one expansion first, play a couple dungeons, then add the other.

Descent is like riding a bike. It's tricky at first, but once you get the hang of it, it's not really that hard. =)

Yeah I was planning on picking up both and slowly working through them. Thanks for the tips.

I have found that the games we play it seems more balanced towards the heros than the overload, in RTL in particular.

I would say that the first and most important lesson is that speed = life. if you slow down the OL will have time to kill you trap you etc, even more so in RTL when the dungeons are really small and have much less spawning places.

I find when we play there is a nice back and forth. Some quests are pro-Overlord and some Pro-Heroes. Also if the heroes get beat they play through the Quest again and try to do things different with a different strategy. I still don't see where all these balance issues people seem to have come from its not a HUGE issue as some people claim it to be. Again I say Balance is for suckers!