Warriors:
Corben: Solid health for a Warrior (better than before); still great stamina and poor movement. He has attribute emphasis where you'd expect it for his role (Might), leaving the rest below average. His ability is weaker than before, since he needs to take 2 wounds to activate it, where he could have reduced wounds to zero in First Ed., but his feat is great for that big fight with the final boss, provided said boss doesn't have Pierce and that he has decent armor by that point (rearranging one gray die isn't that thrilling.) Given the lower overall wound totals in 2nd Ed. and his greater health, I think he's definitely an improvement over his original, but I'd still slot him as about a B.
Eliam: I'm surprised that Eliam's quote on the back of his card isn't "The developers hate me and I don't know why." This guy was one of the most disjointed characters in First Ed. and he remains simply awful in 2nd. Great movement, great stamina, good health... brown defense die? For a Warrior? Why? Likewise, his attributes are spread out, which from one perspective gives him versatility, but it also makes him much less likely to pass those Might tests that everyone is hoping for. But worst of all is his ability, since he can't use it until he finds money! Knight starts with a sword and shield. Berzerker starts with a two-hander. His ability requires two one-handers. Even when you are able to use it, it's still a little lackluster, since spreading a lone wound to other monsters won't help you kill the one you're hitting, meaning that more of them may be able to hit back against your brown defense die in the next OL turn. Amazingly, his feat is actually decent and he has the stamina to execute it frequently, which is nice. But being unable to use his ability at the start of the game (when you really need it) and only one of two to have the lesser defense die (as a Warrior!) leaves Eliam with an E, just like his name. It should probably be an F. He's just as bad as his 1st Ed. version.
Grisban the Thirsty: Good health, solid stamina, poor movement. He has appropriate Might and an extra point in Willpower over Awareness, which is good for resisting effects like Disease... which he can dump with a Rest action, anyway. Abilities like that will often lead to the OL avoiding even trying to put effect-carrying attacks on particular characters; opting to target their more vulnerable companions. But it speaks to his durability. His feat is pretty mundane, but certainly not poor. I'd give him a C.
Hugo the Glorious: Decent health, poor stamina and movement. His ability is kind of constrained, even though movement isn't going to be his hallmark... until you notice the black defense die. Combine that with above average Might and Willpower and Hugo makes a phenomenal Knight or an unusually durable Berzerker. His feat is basically just a bonus, but is also more exciting than most, especially since he won't want to move much to engage his ability. Double damage on dual attack actions for the round? Yes, thanks. I'll take seven. The hindrance on movement overall (poor stats and ability) is pretty troubling, but I'm tempted to give Hugo an A just for his ability to withstand a lot the OL can throw at him. He's definitely better than his 1st Ed. version.
Karnon: Good health and movement, poor stamina. Maxed out on Might, which has its ups and downs. He has an excellent ability, as surges are made more important by their relative scarcity in 2nd Ed., although he can only use 3 times before having to rest. His feat is potentially amazing. Regular Demon Lord in the way? Send in Karnon and it's over in a single die roll. I'd give him a high B. He's not quite as good as 1st Ed., where his amazing stats outweighed his plebian ability and reduction in skills. Bonus for the quote.
Krutzbeck: Decent health, poor move and stamina. Attributes are average. His ability is decent on production, as wounds are somewhat tougher to come by, but defense is also not as sure a thing. Taking six wounds and then expecting to roll well enough on one's single gray die to survive is questionable, at best. His feat is also pretty underwhelming, as a poor roll means that he could be doing more wounds by letting the monsters beat on him, rather than wounding himself. He gets a D. The armor bonus and better overall stats in 1st Ed. means that version was superior, even with the lower health.
Laughin Buldar: Good health, poor move and stamina (I'm detecting a theme here...) Attributes are solid, with higher Awareness than normal for a Warrior. His ability remains as good as ever (Grinding Axe with a shield? Woo hoo!) but his feat is below average, as it's one extra attack in exchange for being Immobilized. I'm thinking he's a C. The 1st Ed. version was better because of the higher movement.
Lord Hawthorne: Decent move and health, poor stamina. His attributes are average for a Warrior, but with higher Knowledge, which doesn't seem as useful as Buldar's Awareness for his role. His ability remains solid, as Reach is almost never a bad thing. His feat is great, since you get two attacks and a short move for one action, which you can combine with a regular first or second action to really good effect. I think he's a B and is about on par with the 1st Ed. version. Serious bonus for the quote, too.
Mordrog: Good health, but poor move and stamina. Sigh. Mordrog has Eliam disease. He was a poor choice in 1st Ed. and remains so here. His attributes are good for a Warrior, but his ability requires taking damage to bring his stats up to par with better characters. If he had better stamina, he wouldn't need to take wounds to be able to move more easily, aside from the fact that gaining one fatigue isn't really worth taking 10 wounds. His feat is just lame. It's essentially one extra action and not even that if you roll well and manage to kill your target. Who wants to roll poorly to make their feat worthwhile? He's just as bad as in 1st Ed. and he gets an E.
Nanok of the Blade: Solid stats all around, plus the black defense die. His ability is good, since surges are something to avoid, but depending on the random roll of a die isn't quite the "I do more damage and ignore more, simultaneously!" effect of the prior version. His attribute distribution is good for a Warrior and his feat is pretty solid for that one big moment in an encounter-ending fight. I'd say he's a low B. This version can't even compare to the roving engine of destruction that was 1st Ed. Bonus for the quote.
Nara of the Fang: Good stats other than underwhelming health. Attributes are decently distributed. Her ability is good and meshes well with her great movement stat. Furthermore, her feat reinforces that theme and shows off what a feat should be: a double action PLUS a bonus. She's a solid B and on par with 1st Ed.
One Fist: Decent stats except for below average health for a Warrior. Attributes are average. His ability is the same as 1st Ed. except that the dice are toned down. B and Y 2nd Ed. is OK, but it's no G and R 1st Ed., which made One Fist a holy terror for the OL, especially with the right skills. Lacking two hands, One Fist really only functions well as a Berzerker. His feat is subpar, but gets points for flavor. He's a C and definitely a step down from 1st Ed.
Sir Valadir: Average stats except for poor stamina and an attribute distribution that says "Healer" more than "Warrior." His ability is great and would be brilliant if he had the stamina to really make use of it. His feat also screams "Healer", making me wonder why they didn't just slot him there, since there's already an abundance of Warriors (if you can make Andira and Ispher Healers, you can make anyone a Healer...) He'd make a solid Knight. I'll give him a low B. He was one of the least played characters in 1st Ed. because of his weird skill and dice distribution (and low stamina.) This version is actually more appealing within the scope of 2nd Ed.
Steelhorns: Solid stats except for poor stamina (Thematically, why is it that most of the brawny, tough characters have low endurance?) and a decent attribute distribution. His ability is solid, but restrained by his stamina. His feat is as difficult to use as his ability in 1st Ed. It will take a very specific set of circumstances to make it useful. That's not a bad thing for a once-per-encounter skill, but his overall picture doesn't rise above a C and he's a slight step down from the 1st Ed.
Syndrael: Solid stats all around and good attribute distribution. I don't like his ability because I tend to object to anything that restricts movement. This seems to be more opportunistic than something you'd actually use to your advantage. His feat is decent, though. He's a high C.
Tahlia: Good health, but poor stats otherwise. Attributes are decent, but low Might for a Warrior. Her ability is completely situational and her feat is useful, but kind of underwhelming. The two skills could potentially play well together, though. She's a bit of a step down from 1st Ed. at a C. Nothing will ever be as good as her Runebound version. Bonus points for the quote, though.
Trenloe the Strong: Average to poor stats for a Warrior. Good attribute distribution for his role, though. His ability is a step up from 1st Ed., given the narrower parameters of the dice and his feat could be a nice key moment, but is also restrained by the nature of dice (what if the monster rolls well on the remainder?) He was never a strong pick in 1st Ed. and he remains basically the same here at a low C or D. That's a step up from Runebound where we've outlawed him as criminally unbalanced.
Varikas the Dead: Decent health, but poor stats otherwise. Good distribution of attributes. His ability remains unchanged from 1st Ed. but is marginally more effective here because his stamina is worse (backhanded compliment.) His feat, OTOH, is phenomenal. It would have been great if he just recovered all health and stamina and still had to sit still as with a usual Stand Up action. The fact that he can act normally raises him from what would have been a C to a solid B. Unfortunately, he's still not as good as he was in 1st Ed.
Bogran the Shadow: Solid Scout stats and attributes with the emphasis on Awareness. His ability is both more versatile and less impressive than 1st Ed., since he doesn't have to run around so much (and has less movement to do so) but deals out less damage. Again, the fact that damage is less frequent in 2nd Ed. probably weathers that. The fact that his feat, unlike Tomble's, allows him to make an attack and then disappear pushes him up to a solid B. I think this version is superior because of the greater overall focus. I like the quote, but it could have been better if they mentioned darkness.
Grey Ker: Good Scout stats and attribute distribution. His ability is brilliant. How many times during a Descent game has your planned course of action been spoiled by an ally killing your target or moving to the wrong place? Grey Ker can get around that and fill gaps where needed. His feat is, like most of the "one free action" types, underwhelming, but it works so well with his ability that it actually seems better than it otherwise would. I think he's a B and is about on par with 1st Ed., where I frequently championed him to the disdain of most of my group. Huge bonus points for the quote, too.
Hugo the Glorious: Decent health, poor stamina and movement. His ability is kind of constrained, even though movement isn't going to be his hallmark... until you notice the black defense die. Combine that with above average Might and Willpower and Hugo makes a phenomenal Knight or an unusually durable Berzerker. His feat is basically just a bonus, but is also more exciting than most, especially since he won't want to move much to engage his ability. Double damage on dual attack actions for the round? Yes, thanks. I'll take seven. The hindrance on movement overall (poor stats and ability) is pretty troubling, but I'm tempted to give Hugo an A just for his ability to withstand a lot the OL can throw at him. He's definitely better than his 1st Ed. version.
Karnon: Good health and movement, poor stamina. Maxed out on Might, which has its ups and downs. He has an excellent ability, as surges are made more important by their relative scarcity in 2nd Ed., although he can only use 3 times before having to rest. His feat is potentially amazing. Regular Demon Lord in the way? Send in Karnon and it's over in a single die roll. I'd give him a high B. He's not quite as good as 1st Ed., where his amazing stats outweighed his plebian ability and reduction in skills. Bonus for the quote.
Krutzbeck: Decent health, poor move and stamina. Attributes are average. His ability is decent on production, as wounds are somewhat tougher to come by, but defense is also not as sure a thing. Taking six wounds and then expecting to roll well enough on one's single gray die to survive is questionable, at best. His feat is also pretty underwhelming, as a poor roll means that he could be doing more wounds by letting the monsters beat on him, rather than wounding himself. He gets a D. The armor bonus and better overall stats in 1st Ed. means that version was superior, even with the lower health.
Laughin Buldar: Good health, poor move and stamina (I'm detecting a theme here...) Attributes are solid, with higher Awareness than normal for a Warrior. His ability remains as good as ever (Grinding Axe with a shield? Woo hoo!) but his feat is below average, as it's one extra attack in exchange for being Immobilized. I'm thinking he's a C. The 1st Ed. version was better because of the higher movement.
Lord Hawthorne: Decent move and health, poor stamina. His attributes are average for a Warrior, but with higher Knowledge, which doesn't seem as useful as Buldar's Awareness for his role. His ability remains solid, as Reach is almost never a bad thing. His feat is great, since you get two attacks and a short move for one action, which you can combine with a regular first or second action to really good effect. I think he's a B and is about on par with the 1st Ed. version. Serious bonus for the quote, too.
Mordrog: Good health, but poor move and stamina. Sigh. Mordrog has Eliam disease. He was a poor choice in 1st Ed. and remains so here. His attributes are good for a Warrior, but his ability requires taking damage to bring his stats up to par with better characters. If he had better stamina, he wouldn't need to take wounds to be able to move more easily, aside from the fact that gaining one fatigue isn't really worth taking 10 wounds. His feat is just lame. It's essentially one extra action and not even that if you roll well and manage to kill your target. Who wants to roll poorly to make their feat worthwhile? He's just as bad as in 1st Ed. and he gets an E.
Nanok of the Blade: Solid stats all around, plus the black defense die. His ability is good, since surges are something to avoid, but depending on the random roll of a die isn't quite the "I do more damage and ignore more, simultaneously!" effect of the prior version. His attribute distribution is good for a Warrior and his feat is pretty solid for that one big moment in an encounter-ending fight. I'd say he's a low B. This version can't even compare to the roving engine of destruction that was 1st Ed. Bonus for the quote.
Nara of the Fang: Good stats other than underwhelming health. Attributes are decently distributed. Her ability is good and meshes well with her great movement stat. Furthermore, her feat reinforces that theme and shows off what a feat should be: a double action PLUS a bonus. She's a solid B and on par with 1st Ed.
One Fist: Decent stats except for below average health for a Warrior. Attributes are average. His ability is the same as 1st Ed. except that the dice are toned down. B and Y 2nd Ed. is OK, but it's no G and R 1st Ed., which made One Fist a holy terror for the OL, especially with the right skills. Lacking two hands, One Fist really only functions well as a Berzerker. His feat is subpar, but gets points for flavor. He's a C and definitely a step down from 1st Ed.
Sir Valadir: Average stats except for poor stamina and an attribute distribution that says "Healer" more than "Warrior." His ability is great and would be brilliant if he had the stamina to really make use of it. His feat also screams "Healer", making me wonder why they didn't just slot him there, since there's already an abundance of Warriors (if you can make Andira and Ispher Healers, you can make anyone a Healer...) He'd make a solid Knight. I'll give him a low B. He was one of the least played characters in 1st Ed. because of his weird skill and dice distribution (and low stamina.) This version is actually more appealing within the scope of 2nd Ed.
Steelhorns: Solid stats except for poor stamina (Thematically, why is it that most of the brawny, tough characters have low endurance?) and a decent attribute distribution. His ability is solid, but restrained by his stamina. His feat is as difficult to use as his ability in 1st Ed. It will take a very specific set of circumstances to make it useful. That's not a bad thing for a once-per-encounter skill, but his overall picture doesn't rise above a C and he's a slight step down from the 1st Ed.
Syndrael: Solid stats all around and good attribute distribution. I don't like his ability because I tend to object to anything that restricts movement. This seems to be more opportunistic than something you'd actually use to your advantage. His feat is decent, though. He's a high C.
Tahlia: Good health, but poor stats otherwise. Attributes are decent, but low Might for a Warrior. Her ability is completely situational and her feat is useful, but kind of underwhelming. The two skills could potentially play well together, though. She's a bit of a step down from 1st Ed. at a C. Nothing will ever be as good as her Runebound version. Bonus points for the quote, though.
Trenloe the Strong: Average to poor stats for a Warrior. Good attribute distribution for his role, though. His ability is a step up from 1st Ed., given the narrower parameters of the dice and his feat could be a nice key moment, but is also restrained by the nature of dice (what if the monster rolls well on the remainder?) He was never a strong pick in 1st Ed. and he remains basically the same here at a low C or D. That's a step up from Runebound where we've outlawed him as criminally unbalanced.
Varikas the Dead: Decent health, but poor stats otherwise. Good distribution of attributes. His ability remains unchanged from 1st Ed. but is marginally more effective here because his stamina is worse (backhanded compliment.) His feat, OTOH, is phenomenal. It would have been great if he just recovered all health and stamina and still had to sit still as with a usual Stand Up action. The fact that he can act normally raises him from what would have been a C to a solid B. Unfortunately, he's still not as good as he was in 1st Ed.
Scouts:
Arvel Worldwalker: One of the most intriguing designs from 1st Ed. Arvel remains that way in 2nd. Solid Scout stats and one of three characters with 12 attribute points that are, of course, evenly distributed. Her ability only accentuates that even distribution, making her the go-to utility person. Her feat could be anything from average to amazing, depending on quest circumstances. Character discussions are a constant struggle between focus and versatility. In Descent, I tend toward the former, but Arvel is the exception to the rule. I'd tag her with a low A and I think this version is actually superior to 1st Ed.Bogran the Shadow: Solid Scout stats and attributes with the emphasis on Awareness. His ability is both more versatile and less impressive than 1st Ed., since he doesn't have to run around so much (and has less movement to do so) but deals out less damage. Again, the fact that damage is less frequent in 2nd Ed. probably weathers that. The fact that his feat, unlike Tomble's, allows him to make an attack and then disappear pushes him up to a solid B. I think this version is superior because of the greater overall focus. I like the quote, but it could have been better if they mentioned darkness.
Grey Ker: Good Scout stats and attribute distribution. His ability is brilliant. How many times during a Descent game has your planned course of action been spoiled by an ally killing your target or moving to the wrong place? Grey Ker can get around that and fill gaps where needed. His feat is, like most of the "one free action" types, underwhelming, but it works so well with his ability that it actually seems better than it otherwise would. I think he's a B and is about on par with 1st Ed., where I frequently championed him to the disdain of most of my group. Huge bonus points for the quote, too.
Jain Fairwood: Excellent stats and decent attributes. Jain's ability dovetails nicely with her low health but high stamina and is a good way to keep her in the game longer than typical because of the availability of Rest actions that now can't be spoiled by the OL. Her feat is good, because it incorporates two free actions, not just one. She's an A.
Kirga: Decent stats with poor stamina but better health than most Scouts (just like before) and average attributes with the heavy emphasis on Awareness. The latter and his ability are quite obviously pushing Kirga toward the role of Thief; an abrupt departure from his former role as walking machine gun bunker (16 health!) and all-around OL annoyance. His feat also plays into the Thief role, presuming you've gone a bit too far to get that last Search token and suddenly need to back up from that raging Elemental. As a Thief, he's a high B or low A. As a Wildlander, he's more like a C. He really can't compete with the 1st Ed. version, if only for the anti-spawn ability.
Laurel of Bloodwood: Generally below average stats and average attributes. I'm not sure why they felt the need to lower her move and stamina when her ability is not nearly as good as it was in 1st Ed. Not having to spend stamina is nice, but it's more of a grind thing than a killing blow. The feat makes up for that somewhat by ensuring a hit at any range, but she's still pretty middle-of-the-road and clearly angled toward being a Wildlander. Regardless of class, she's a C and a step down from 1st Ed. I'm really not sure what he quote means. What do autumn winds have to do with blood?
Lindel: One of the most phenomenal characters in 1st Ed. remains that way, with excellent Scout stats, evenly divided attributes among 12 points, and an ability that makes that even division a constant bonus, rather than an occasional drawback. His feat ensures a solid strike even moreso than Laurel's. I'm almost disappointed that this guy has a fixed role, because I'd use him almost anywhere. This is a prime example of versatility winning out over focus. He's about on par with his amazing 1st Ed. self and an A, beyond doubt.
Red Scorpion: Red Scorpion's stats are fine except for the lower health and she, like Lindel and Arvel, has the 12 attribute points evenly distributed. Her ability was always kind of questionable in 1st Ed. because it generally only worked one way (fatigue to health) and that inhibited her from doing more with her widely dispersed skills and dice. I think she's in better shape here with the higher stamina, despite the lower health. Her feat is a crapshoot, almost literally, because there's no telling whether the monster will roll the same or better. I never like relying on the RNG for my "big" moments. She's a low B but better than in 1st Ed.
Ronan of the Wild: Solid Scout stats with excellent stamina and attribute distribution that says "Healer" more than "Scout" but is still decent. Pico is a familiar entirely ruled by the meta mechanics of the game. The old game. When the OL's entire purpose was to kill the heroes, this ability from Pico would make sense. Getting too close to your Conquest limit and the OL picking on the mage again? Hand off Pico. Now he has to try to get through Nanok's armor. Good luck with that. But since the death of any one character won't lead to a game loss anymore, this ability is mildly irrelevant. It still has tactical use in the same way that it did in 1st Ed. Giving an extra power die to a character who lacked focus was fine, but in both editions, it still leaves Ronan as a kind of hanger-on to his own familiar. It seems like the party could hang with the fox, regardless of whether his keeper is around ("Leave the gun. Take the cannoli.") This is only reinforced by the fact that a character who has no trouble with movement has a feat that is centered around movement... back to his familiar. Ronan would probably work best as a Thief and, regardless, earns a D, which is about what he received in 1st Ed.
Silhouette: Good Scout stats and an appropriate attribute distribution. Silhouette's ability and feat are both steering her toward the role of Thief, as it makes no sense to be anything but adjacent to monsters to take advantage of her ability (which decently resolves one of the historically frustrating moments for the heroes; at least she'll get something out of it) and her feat is all about Search tokens. As a Thief, she'd be a B. As a Wildlander, a C, at best. This version is actually slightly better than 1st Ed., which turned out to be too situational most of the time. Killer quote.
Tatianna: Tatianna, OTOH, screams "Wildlander". She has excellent stats. Her attributes are questionable, as I'd rather have a 3 in a slot than universal 2s outside of Awareness. Her ability is great, as it completely suits the role of an archer running around in the background, and her feat is decent for the "big monster" moment. She's a B and on par with her 1st Ed. version.
Tetherys: Solid Scout stats and decent attributes. Her ability has often been underrated but should get a bit more shine in this version, especially since her feat plays right into it. I think this is a step up from 1st Ed. at a B.
Tobin Farslayer: Decent move, good health, poor stamina. Attributes are solid. Tobin is obviously being steered toward the Wildlander class, as both ability and feat play into long range attacks. I like the ability, despite its situational application, and the feat follows suit. There's nothing truly impressive about this character but no significant drawbacks other than the stamina, either, as long as you're willing to play a Wildlander. He's a C and a big step down from 1st Ed.
Tomble Burrowell: I think he's a Thief... Good Scout stat and solid attributes. I really dislike cliché and the halfling thief has been one since one Bilbo Baggins, Esq. It's interesting to see that the Scout characters are so heavily divided between those who could be almost any class or role and those who are so clearly delineated to a specific class within their role. Tomble's ability and feat are both solid for a Thief. But largely for a Thief. He's a C. (Jeebus. Even the quote is clichéd.)
Vyrah the Falconer: Solid Scout stats and attributes. Skye's reroll ability is potentially more useful than other familiars, but that potential involves the RNG, so it's hard to quantify. His feat, however, could be a game-changer with Stun involved. I think that feat pushes an otherwise average character to a B and also pushes him over the top of the old version.
Kirga: Decent stats with poor stamina but better health than most Scouts (just like before) and average attributes with the heavy emphasis on Awareness. The latter and his ability are quite obviously pushing Kirga toward the role of Thief; an abrupt departure from his former role as walking machine gun bunker (16 health!) and all-around OL annoyance. His feat also plays into the Thief role, presuming you've gone a bit too far to get that last Search token and suddenly need to back up from that raging Elemental. As a Thief, he's a high B or low A. As a Wildlander, he's more like a C. He really can't compete with the 1st Ed. version, if only for the anti-spawn ability.
Laurel of Bloodwood: Generally below average stats and average attributes. I'm not sure why they felt the need to lower her move and stamina when her ability is not nearly as good as it was in 1st Ed. Not having to spend stamina is nice, but it's more of a grind thing than a killing blow. The feat makes up for that somewhat by ensuring a hit at any range, but she's still pretty middle-of-the-road and clearly angled toward being a Wildlander. Regardless of class, she's a C and a step down from 1st Ed. I'm really not sure what he quote means. What do autumn winds have to do with blood?
Lindel: One of the most phenomenal characters in 1st Ed. remains that way, with excellent Scout stats, evenly divided attributes among 12 points, and an ability that makes that even division a constant bonus, rather than an occasional drawback. His feat ensures a solid strike even moreso than Laurel's. I'm almost disappointed that this guy has a fixed role, because I'd use him almost anywhere. This is a prime example of versatility winning out over focus. He's about on par with his amazing 1st Ed. self and an A, beyond doubt.
Red Scorpion: Red Scorpion's stats are fine except for the lower health and she, like Lindel and Arvel, has the 12 attribute points evenly distributed. Her ability was always kind of questionable in 1st Ed. because it generally only worked one way (fatigue to health) and that inhibited her from doing more with her widely dispersed skills and dice. I think she's in better shape here with the higher stamina, despite the lower health. Her feat is a crapshoot, almost literally, because there's no telling whether the monster will roll the same or better. I never like relying on the RNG for my "big" moments. She's a low B but better than in 1st Ed.
Ronan of the Wild: Solid Scout stats with excellent stamina and attribute distribution that says "Healer" more than "Scout" but is still decent. Pico is a familiar entirely ruled by the meta mechanics of the game. The old game. When the OL's entire purpose was to kill the heroes, this ability from Pico would make sense. Getting too close to your Conquest limit and the OL picking on the mage again? Hand off Pico. Now he has to try to get through Nanok's armor. Good luck with that. But since the death of any one character won't lead to a game loss anymore, this ability is mildly irrelevant. It still has tactical use in the same way that it did in 1st Ed. Giving an extra power die to a character who lacked focus was fine, but in both editions, it still leaves Ronan as a kind of hanger-on to his own familiar. It seems like the party could hang with the fox, regardless of whether his keeper is around ("Leave the gun. Take the cannoli.") This is only reinforced by the fact that a character who has no trouble with movement has a feat that is centered around movement... back to his familiar. Ronan would probably work best as a Thief and, regardless, earns a D, which is about what he received in 1st Ed.
Silhouette: Good Scout stats and an appropriate attribute distribution. Silhouette's ability and feat are both steering her toward the role of Thief, as it makes no sense to be anything but adjacent to monsters to take advantage of her ability (which decently resolves one of the historically frustrating moments for the heroes; at least she'll get something out of it) and her feat is all about Search tokens. As a Thief, she'd be a B. As a Wildlander, a C, at best. This version is actually slightly better than 1st Ed., which turned out to be too situational most of the time. Killer quote.
Tatianna: Tatianna, OTOH, screams "Wildlander". She has excellent stats. Her attributes are questionable, as I'd rather have a 3 in a slot than universal 2s outside of Awareness. Her ability is great, as it completely suits the role of an archer running around in the background, and her feat is decent for the "big monster" moment. She's a B and on par with her 1st Ed. version.
Tetherys: Solid Scout stats and decent attributes. Her ability has often been underrated but should get a bit more shine in this version, especially since her feat plays right into it. I think this is a step up from 1st Ed. at a B.
Tobin Farslayer: Decent move, good health, poor stamina. Attributes are solid. Tobin is obviously being steered toward the Wildlander class, as both ability and feat play into long range attacks. I like the ability, despite its situational application, and the feat follows suit. There's nothing truly impressive about this character but no significant drawbacks other than the stamina, either, as long as you're willing to play a Wildlander. He's a C and a big step down from 1st Ed.
Tomble Burrowell: I think he's a Thief... Good Scout stat and solid attributes. I really dislike cliché and the halfling thief has been one since one Bilbo Baggins, Esq. It's interesting to see that the Scout characters are so heavily divided between those who could be almost any class or role and those who are so clearly delineated to a specific class within their role. Tomble's ability and feat are both solid for a Thief. But largely for a Thief. He's a C. (Jeebus. Even the quote is clichéd.)
Vyrah the Falconer: Solid Scout stats and attributes. Skye's reroll ability is potentially more useful than other familiars, but that potential involves the RNG, so it's hard to quantify. His feat, however, could be a game-changer with Stun involved. I think that feat pushes an otherwise average character to a B and also pushes him over the top of the old version.
Healers:
Andira Runehand: My first reaction was: "Andira? Ms. Spike-hands as a healer?" But somebody's gotta do it. She has good Healer stats and attributes with the emphasis on Willpower and her ability at least recalls her offensive days and will mildly discourage those Beastman suicide runs. Her feat, of course, fits nicely with her new role. She's an all-around solid character. A B and probably about the same level as before.
Ashirian: Oh, my. Solid stats with great movement and decent attributes with the emphasis on Awareness for some reason. Her ability is flat-out amazing. Stunned. Stunned! Ze glasses! Zey do nothink! All she has to do to save someone's neck in a tight spot is make sure that she's standing next to them when her turn ends. If the monsters can't move to that position or don't have LOS, they miss out. In that respect, the safest place to be would be in a cloud of regular Zombies, because they won't be able to move out of the way to let non-Stunned Zombies in. And then the feat... Last encounter. You're staring down two Shadow Dragons. But go ahead and take a turn to do what you'd like. They won't be doing anything. A stands for Ashirian.
Aurim: Healing potions already got a significant boost in 2nd Ed. Aurim can make them that much better. He has excellent stats and attributes for a Healer. His ability could be transformative for almost any encounter. The drawback? Actually finding potions in the first place and then the fact that they're one-use per encounter and you have to find them again next time. They days of him being the walking pharmacy are over, even with the feat that gives him a good chance of finding one. I think he's a low B because of that randomness and a significant step down from his 1st Ed. version, but he could be one of the more memorable heroes you'll ever play just for that one time...
Avric Albright: Excellent Healer stats and attributes. Avric is Disciple, squared. He's clearly slanted in that direction but is a solid enough character that he might even make Spiritspeaker useful in comparison to Disciple (which it really isn't.) His ability provides excellent utility for those moments when surges would be overkill and his feat, while really a rework of skills the Disciple already has access to, is still pretty solid. He's a low A or high B.
Brother Gherinn: Even worse than Andira, the idea that a Dungeonquest hero would be a Healer, coming from a game where the concept of healing is more of a rueful joke, was even more jarring. His stats are subpar, except for health, but his attribute arrangement is good for his role. I dislike self-wounding abilities that don't result in truly significant advantages and his feat is a gimped version of Avric's. He's a C, at best and a step down from 1st Ed.
Brother Glyr: Once again, Glyr stands out as one of the most disjointed of heroes. His move, obviously, is miserable while his health is great. But his stamina is also poor and his attribute emphasis is on Might. Being able to move 2 spaces and still use both actions to attack without spending fatigue is nice, but it would be nicer for a Warrior. Glyr's feat is also kind of subpar because reclaiming 3 fatigue isn't the bonus of reclaiming 4 or 5. Having Corben's ability tacked on just seems like a late development when they realized that no one would pick this guy. He's actually a step up from 1st Ed. because of the 12 health, but he's still a D, at best.
Elder Mok: Spiritseer Mok has been transformed into the Descent version of Remora from Cosmic Encounter. Healed? Sweet, thanks! Rested? Sweet, thanks! And, of course, since he's often going to be the one doing the healing, it's recursion like a WoW Holy Paladin with Beacon and Protector of the Innocent ("Heal that guy, heal you. Heal me, heal you.") He has good stats and attributes for a Healer and he retains his annoyance factor for the OL via his feat. Before it was a constant drag on Threat. But now, with the generally smaller card pool used by the OL, his feat could be the turning point of an encounter as he trashes that Frenzy at just the right moment. Mok is a high B or low A and he's a bit better than he was in 1st Ed.
Ispher: Ispher has decent stats, if slightly low on health, and average attributes. It's a good thing he still can't be Poisoned, since his Might is his lowest. As before, he's the regenerating man and his feat is just the overdrive version of that. One of the first rules of Tank Club is: Don't let the healer die. Ispher tends to take care of that on his own. He's a B and about the same as before. He's yet another character that's kind of jarring as a Healer, since he was clearly a Scout type in 1st Ed. [shrug] Whattaya gonna do? At least it's not clichéd. Weird quote for a Healer, though.
Jonas the Kind: Decent stats for a Healer (although that's a ferocious health change) and good attributes. Jonas' is the first ability that cries out for a FAQ. If I don't attack in multiple rounds, does that mean I keep accumulating brown dice? My guess is "No.", which means they should have added a "Limit 1" to the end of that description. Of course, that's a pretty lame ability, since everyone is meant to carry their weight on offense, so maybe they are supposed to build up. His feat, OTOH, is pretty cool and a nice reversal of the classic Dark Charm. That alone lifts him to a high C. He's a pretty big step down from 1st Ed.
Okaluk and Rakash: Flat out bad stats and average attributes don't speak well of O&R at the outset. But their ability, unlike Glyr's, will have some actual impact, giving them the highest movement in the game. And their feat could be utterly amazing. We've already played one game where all but the Healer were knocked out. O&R could have just shrugged at that. Even so, they're still a low B, at best. Nothing could have equaled their broken status from 1st Ed. and I'm thankful that that wasn't carried forward (since I'm usually the OL.)
Sahla: Solid stats and average attributes. For the sake of his ability, I kinda wish that his Willpower had been emphasized. It's already situational, since he has to wait for a condition to be applied before it has any effect and many heroes can do that on their own. His feat, however, is really interesting and makes him a character I'd be interested in using if only to exercise that once per encounter. Nevertheless, he's a low B, at best. He's about the same as before.
Brother Gherinn: Even worse than Andira, the idea that a Dungeonquest hero would be a Healer, coming from a game where the concept of healing is more of a rueful joke, was even more jarring. His stats are subpar, except for health, but his attribute arrangement is good for his role. I dislike self-wounding abilities that don't result in truly significant advantages and his feat is a gimped version of Avric's. He's a C, at best and a step down from 1st Ed.
Brother Glyr: Once again, Glyr stands out as one of the most disjointed of heroes. His move, obviously, is miserable while his health is great. But his stamina is also poor and his attribute emphasis is on Might. Being able to move 2 spaces and still use both actions to attack without spending fatigue is nice, but it would be nicer for a Warrior. Glyr's feat is also kind of subpar because reclaiming 3 fatigue isn't the bonus of reclaiming 4 or 5. Having Corben's ability tacked on just seems like a late development when they realized that no one would pick this guy. He's actually a step up from 1st Ed. because of the 12 health, but he's still a D, at best.
Elder Mok: Spiritseer Mok has been transformed into the Descent version of Remora from Cosmic Encounter. Healed? Sweet, thanks! Rested? Sweet, thanks! And, of course, since he's often going to be the one doing the healing, it's recursion like a WoW Holy Paladin with Beacon and Protector of the Innocent ("Heal that guy, heal you. Heal me, heal you.") He has good stats and attributes for a Healer and he retains his annoyance factor for the OL via his feat. Before it was a constant drag on Threat. But now, with the generally smaller card pool used by the OL, his feat could be the turning point of an encounter as he trashes that Frenzy at just the right moment. Mok is a high B or low A and he's a bit better than he was in 1st Ed.
Ispher: Ispher has decent stats, if slightly low on health, and average attributes. It's a good thing he still can't be Poisoned, since his Might is his lowest. As before, he's the regenerating man and his feat is just the overdrive version of that. One of the first rules of Tank Club is: Don't let the healer die. Ispher tends to take care of that on his own. He's a B and about the same as before. He's yet another character that's kind of jarring as a Healer, since he was clearly a Scout type in 1st Ed. [shrug] Whattaya gonna do? At least it's not clichéd. Weird quote for a Healer, though.
Jonas the Kind: Decent stats for a Healer (although that's a ferocious health change) and good attributes. Jonas' is the first ability that cries out for a FAQ. If I don't attack in multiple rounds, does that mean I keep accumulating brown dice? My guess is "No.", which means they should have added a "Limit 1" to the end of that description. Of course, that's a pretty lame ability, since everyone is meant to carry their weight on offense, so maybe they are supposed to build up. His feat, OTOH, is pretty cool and a nice reversal of the classic Dark Charm. That alone lifts him to a high C. He's a pretty big step down from 1st Ed.
Okaluk and Rakash: Flat out bad stats and average attributes don't speak well of O&R at the outset. But their ability, unlike Glyr's, will have some actual impact, giving them the highest movement in the game. And their feat could be utterly amazing. We've already played one game where all but the Healer were knocked out. O&R could have just shrugged at that. Even so, they're still a low B, at best. Nothing could have equaled their broken status from 1st Ed. and I'm thankful that that wasn't carried forward (since I'm usually the OL.)
Sahla: Solid stats and average attributes. For the sake of his ability, I kinda wish that his Willpower had been emphasized. It's already situational, since he has to wait for a condition to be applied before it has any effect and many heroes can do that on their own. His feat, however, is really interesting and makes him a character I'd be interested in using if only to exercise that once per encounter. Nevertheless, he's a low B, at best. He's about the same as before.
Mages:
Astarra: The former Runewitch has great Mage stats and excellent attributes for her role. Given my opinion that movement tends to rule all in games like these, both her ability and her feat have real potential; especially the latter, given the number of quests that involve racing monsters to an exit. She's a solid B and about the same as her earlier version.Challara: Good Mage stats and attributes except for the low movement. If it was just Brightblaze or just Challara that had Pierce 1, it wouldn't be very thrilling. But Brightblaze gives everyone Pierce 1 and that's pretty cool. Her feat is less so, since it only involves a single attack and retrieval of her familiar, but her overall contribution with him is considerable. She's a B, but not quite as good as 1st Ed., since BB could hit multiple targets with an attack that simply ignored armor.
Jaes the Exile: No more "Battlemage"? Indicative of new classes in the inevitable expansions? He has decent stats and attributes for a Mage, even with the low stamina. The high health is a plus. However, carrying around a rune will obviate that stamina shortage and he can still do so with heavy armor, which is nice. His feat is a little underwhelming, though. He's a B and a step down from 1st Ed.
Landrec the Wise: Decent stats and properly emphasized attributes. But a low move rate and the brown defense die put him at an immediate disadvantage to the other Mages. Gaining a surge is nice, but it's only if you haven't already rolled one. If you do, your ability is irrelevant. The feat is nice, but now you're forced to rely on the RNG to help you out with your big moment, since you have to roll two naturally, as your ability won't help you out. Given the rate of surge production in the games we've played, I'm betting that Landrec's ability won't be useful about 2/3 of the time, at least, and his feat is little better than what anyone else can do with a solid weapon. He's a D and a large step down from 1st Ed.
Leoric of the Book: Good Mage stats and decent attributes. His ability is redolent of a Healer, but it's also a form of self-preservation with only 8 health and helps out the rest of the party without him having to lift a finger. His feat could be excellent for the inevitable Beastman crowd. He's a high B.
Lyssa: Lyssa was never a popular choice with our group because of her low survivability and RNG-dominated ability. It's also surprising to see her as a Mage, given her Scout-like nature in 1st Ed. She has great stats for a Mage, but her attributes are slanted towards Scout. She still has the defending re-roll as an ability and her feat is... odd. It works in concert with her ability but isn't quite the game-changing moment you expect from those skills. She's a low C and about the same as before.
Mad Carthos: Average Mage stats, except for the low stamina, and heavily slanted attributes. His ability, thankfully, plays right into that low stamina. His feat is pretty nondescript. Just the ability to use most 1 XP abilities for free pushes him to a low B, I think. He's definitely not the cannon of 1st Ed., though.
Master Thorn: Great Mage stats and good Mage attributes. His ability combined with his high movement makes him really valuable. Unfortunately, his signature ability from his previous version is now reduced to a feat and it explains within its description why this is so: it would be too easy for Thorn to win many of the encounters for the heroes if he could still teleport everywhere. That said, he's probably the most mobile character in the game with a decent roll and that makes him a high B or low A in my book. He's not quite as good as 1st Ed. because of the lower health.
Shiver: Good Mage stats and decent attributes. I think his ability and feat are a good way to approximate the singular Aura 4 of his previous ability. He has more tactical uses now, rather than simply making him a target for every ranged monster on the table. I tend to think that he would function best as a Necromancer. He's a low B and better than he was previously.
Truthseer Kel: Good Mage stats and a great set of Mage attributes with a dual emphasis on Knowledge and Awareness. Her ability and health make her an excellent stand-alone cannon and her feat is a decent Mok moment for the OL, especially with the smaller deck and slower draw pace. She's a high B or low A and about the same as before.
Widow Tarha: Good stats and attributes and an ability that isn't very novel, but becomes very reliable, especially because she can adjust for longer range and/or get rid of the dreaded 'X'. Her feat is interesting but not spectacular and one wonders how it would change a Blast attack. She's a B.
Zyla: Good Mage stats and attributes (there's a theme here, too, obviously) and a solid ability. What does it say when the Mages, overall, seem to be more mobile than the Scouts? Her feat is different from Tomble's and Bogran's, since both of theirs require them to miss part or all of the heroes' turn, while she can activate hers to stay out of danger on the OL's turn. That's nice. She's a high B and a step down from 1st Ed. only because there is no longer any Stealth die.
So, there it is. All opinions welcome (since that's what these are.) There are probably some typos in there, which I'll get to later. I was thinking of doing a monster comparison at some point...
No comments:
Post a Comment