Heroica: Glory Amongst The Stars - Rules & FAQ

[Waterbrick Down]

11 minutes ago, Kintobor said:

Which spells do have a proficiency check, if any? I thought spells had a proficiency to cast?

The following spells require a Proficiency Check (i.e. a number of successes):
Charm
Elemental Evocation
Entropic Mending
Gravity Sink
Healing Light
Meditate
Mystic Binding
Restful Sleep
Sickening Radiance
Solar Flare
Sonic Sweep
Tongues
Velocity Amplification

The following spells only require the Proficiency:
Alter Form
Enhanced Vision
Gain Entry
Gravimetric Propulsion
Illusory Clone
Obfuscate
Photonic Modulation
Purging Font
Quantum Transposition
Securing
Spirit Ally
Transmute Matter
Warding Bond

Most of the latter half are the non-combat spells

[Kintobor]

Okay, I see now in the description of the spells that it does specify, but I was under the impression that each spell needed to be rolled for to see if it went off. Thanks, WBD.

Do you need proficiency to be at a certain point to cast higher levels of spells? For example, do you need three ranks in Occult to cast Common familiar, or can you cast it with just the Spirit cost?

[Waterbrick Down]

4 minutes ago, Kintobor said:

Okay, I see now in the description of the spells that it does specify, but I was under the impression that each spell needed to be rolled for to see if it went off. Thanks, WBD.

Do you need proficiency to be at a certain point to cast higher levels of spells? For example, do you need three ranks in Occult to cast Common familiar, or can you cast it with just the Spirit cost?

Earlier versions of the spells all required a proficiency check, but it started not making sense for some of the non-combat spells to simply not work at waste spirit.

No need for a higher proficiency to cast higher level spells, you only need the necessary Spirit. Essentially it allows for builds with a low proficiency casting stat, but a high spirit pool to still be useful. You won't necessarily have a lot you can do in combat as the effectiveness of most of those spells is driven by having a higher casting proficiency, but you'll get plenty of mileage out of the non-combat spells.

1 hour ago, Kintobor said:

Merei Evokes Pulling Point on Raymond- Occult Proficiency Check: (5) Success! Raymond pulled to E1. -1 Spirit Merei Moves to E2.

Also, Pulling Point deals damage in addition to moving the target.

[Duvors]

@Waterbrick Down, I've been thinking on the discussion we had on the spell Meditate, specially on if it should be a normal action. You said that doing so would essentially make Spirit infinite out-of-combat, but it occurs to me that taking meditate as a spell has more-or-less the same effect but with more limitations on who gets to do it. Personally, I think the main issue that meditate poses out-of-combat (along with similar actions) is the possibility of it being spammed to abuse cumulative benefits. While personally I think most people won't do this, it might be good to mention somewhere in the FAQ that this is in poor taste and generally discouraged.

[Waterbrick Down]

17 minutes ago, Duvors said:

@Waterbrick Down, I've been thinking on the discussion we had on the spell Meditate, specially on if it should be a normal action. You said that doing so would essentially make Spirit infinite out-of-combat, but it occurs to me that taking meditate as a spell has more-or-less the same effect but with more limitations on who gets to do it. Personally, I think the main issue that meditate poses out-of-combat (along with similar actions) is the possibility of it being spammed to abuse cumulative benefits. While personally I think most people won't do this, it might be good to mention somewhere in the FAQ that this is in poor taste and generally discouraged.

Sure, we can make it free to Mission Master's interpretation as to what is abuse of the system. The trick is getting by in from players that the interpretation might vary from Mission Master to Mission Master and while one might allow you to constantly meditate in order to cast infinite spells because it doesn't break their game, another might not. I'm open to trying it and letting it go for a while to determine whether the community can keep it balanced. If they can't we can always reel in the strictness of the rule.

[Duvors]

Just now, Waterbrick Down said:

Sure, we can make it free to Mission Master's interpretation as to what is abuse of the system. The trick is getting by in from players that the interpretation might vary from Mission Master to Mission Master and while one might allow you to constantly meditate in order to cast infinite spells because it doesn't break their game, another might not.

Cool.

[Waterbrick Down]

Probably a better topic of discussion here. Do folks have any thoughts on if/how Proficiencies that are gained as a reward should be handled? Should they be allowed to trade in if a character retrains their stats or should they be fixed for as long as the character exists?

The former would mean that a character that already has a high proficiency is getting more character points they can cash in on for +1 Proficiency bump. I.e. Felix Coding bumps from 1 to 2, which is the equivalent of 2 character points, where as Polaris Coding bumps from 0 to 1, which is the equivalent of 1 character point.

The latter interpretation would mean that we need a way to designate stats that are fixed and stats that can be retooled.

[samurai-turtle]

5 hours ago, Waterbrick Down said:

Probably a better topic of discussion here. Do folks have any thoughts on if/how Proficiencies that are gained as a reward should be handled? Should they be allowed to trade in if a character retrains their stats or should they be fixed for as long as the character exists?

The former would mean that a character that already has a high proficiency is getting more character points they can cash in on for +1 Proficiency bump. I.e. Felix Coding bumps from 1 to 2, which is the equivalent of 2 character points, where as Polaris Coding bumps from 0 to 1, which is the equivalent of 1 character point.

The latter interpretation would mean that we need a way to designate stats that are fixed and stats that can be retooled.

It does sound similar to the "tools" we can buy. Since I just bought a Utility Belt Polaris' Medicine Checks will have the same affect. The 1 will go up to 2 now right? So I guess make a note of it some ware on stat post. 

Edited August 27, 2021 by samurai-turtle
Spelling

[Zepher]

At first I wasn't super down for proficiency to be rewarded as part of the quests... I think we'd have to be careful about it.

BUT, that being said, I sort of like it as long as it's relatively rare and challenging! I think getting a proficiency 1 for not too much isn't too big a deal. I think getting higher levels (since that's pretty expensive) should be tougher. That's my only concern. If I'm jumping up from Proficiency 4 to 5, that'd cost 5 character points normally! That's a TON! So, just thinking ahead a little. It'd feel wrong to penalize someone for having high proficiency too: those who aren't good at something gain the skill, but someone who is good and does the same thing doesn't? So, again, for balance down the road, think it's worth thinking carefully.

BUT BUT: like I said, I'm not opposed. I think a player would just have to do a little bookkeeping, because I DON'T think they should be transferable. They reflect a choice you made as a character. It'd be weird to get experience coding after entering the matrix and then immediately turn around and say: no, actually, the matrix taught me how to fish really well. Doesn't make sense. You could build on your proficiencies granted by "experience." So if you got 1 from a quest, bumped it up to 2, and then decided you didn't want it at 2 anymore, you could bump it back to 1. But you couldn't spend that 1 - that's there because you went in.

My two cents.

[Kintobor]

I feel like designating somewhere on your character sheet stats (such as "gained +1 coding from Mission #__") works. I look at it less like the experiences you got on the mission gave you the increase in a proficiency and more like the mission giver trains the PC to increase their proficiency, sort of like how in Skyrim you can pay trainers to increase your skills.

[Duvors]

I personally would write it out something like this;

Engineering 4 (3 +1 MB)

[Waterbrick Down]

3 hours ago, Kintobor said:

I feel like designating somewhere on your character sheet stats (such as "gained +1 coding from Mission #__") works. I look at it less like the experiences you got on the mission gave you the increase in a proficiency and more like the mission giver trains the PC to increase their proficiency, sort of like how in Skyrim you can pay trainers to increase your skills.

1 hour ago, Duvors said:

I personally would write it out something like this;

Engineering 4 (3 +1 MB)

I like the idea of keeping track of it in Registration topic as that'll help avoid cluttering up stats in quest and this notation idea.

[Zepher]

In regards to an unstable hero, since I see that being discussed in the MM Lounge:

I think it'd be wise to put in something like Death Saves (again, D&D is my touchstone - if there are other systems that use other similar rules I'm cool with that: especially something quicker since death saves can go up to 5 and that's a lot of time for an online game). The reason is not to punish characters or lead to more death, but to light a fire under the butts of the other players - it would make getting someone back up a much bigger priority. I think that somehow "stabilizing" someone should be a bigger plus too, be that rolls or medicine checks. I don't think they should be stable. I think they should come back to 1 with a success. All in all, the idea is to make an "unstable" character more of a target: both by introducing greater risk but also greater reward for interaction. Don't know how others feel. Do think it's important that ANY character, not just those with healing spells or medicine proficiency, should be able to get downed players up. Healers & those with medicine should definitely be better at it, but anyone should at least have the option.

[Waterbrick Down]

22 minutes ago, Zepher said:

In regards to an unstable hero, since I see that being discussed in the MM Lounge:

I think it'd be wise to put in something like Death Saves (again, D&D is my touchstone - if there are other systems that use other similar rules I'm cool with that: especially something quicker since death saves can go up to 5 and that's a lot of time for an online game). The reason is not to punish characters or lead to more death, but to light a fire under the butts of the other players - it would make getting someone back up a much bigger priority. I think that somehow "stabilizing" someone should be a bigger plus too, be that rolls or medicine checks. I don't think they should be stable. I think they should come back to 1 with a success. All in all, the idea is to make an "unstable" character more of a target: both by introducing greater risk but also greater reward for interaction. Don't know how others feel. Do think it's important that ANY character, not just those with healing spells or medicine proficiency, should be able to get downed players up. Healers & those with medicine should definitely be better at it, but anyone should at least have the option.

You're right in that the goal is to encourage folks to get their companions back up. We can do that either by penalizing (if you don't get them back up they'll die) or incentivizing (get them back up and there's a bonus). Finding the right balance between these two is always the trick. I do think non-healer should be able to help their downed companions, but part of me feels that may disincentive healers too much as they already have to choose between spending a turn dealing damage or spending a turn healing.

Coming from D&D as well, I like the death saves, but I don't like how it can be 6 rounds before something is determined. My current thoughts are:

• If a character is Unstable at the beginning of a round they roll a Stability Check (i.e. a d6) on their turn: on a 1-3 they remain Unstable, on a 4-5 they are Stabilized, and on a 6 they are revived with 1 Vitality and are Lucky for their next turn.
• As a Standard Action a character may attempt a Medicine Proficiency Check (DC 1, 3) to either Stabilize an Unstable hero or revive them with 1 Vitality and make them Lucky for their next turn.
• At the end of battle Stabilized heroes are revived with 1 Vitality, Unstabilized heroes may make one more Stability Check or alternatively an Ally may make a Medicine Proficiency Check, on a failure the hero dies.

[Zepher]

Whoops, I let this conversation get away from me! I have more thoughts!

Overall, I like the parameters you set up there WBD. The getting back up on a 6, plus lucky, is really good incentive, so I like that! I still think there should be more active danger, however, on a turn-to-turn basis. Maybe two ones kills them? I don't want it to be likely, per say, but I still think a little fire under the butts could be good. I'll actually address the two reasons I think this, aka name the problem I'm trying to solve, and see if that helps generate some better answers - I stand by that the problem is a problem, but I don't like my fix for it.

My problem with the current system is: if there is no threat, there really isn't a rush to get someone up. In fact, it almost makes sense to try to prolong battles and prolong someone being unstable - the longer they're unstable, the more likely it is that they'll get back up! My second problem is in the opposite direction: if you happen to be downed in the final round of combat, through very little fault of your own, you are in DEEP danger very suddenly. So I don't like the idea of the final roll being tied directly to the final round of combat.

All that being said, I don't think we have to worry about making healers feel unnecessary. They have two benefits: they don't have to be adjacent, and they automatically succeed. I think those two more than make up for other people being able to help.

[Kintobor]

So, as a suggestion, what are people's thoughts on bleeding out? If you do not get up within three turns your character dies?

[Yzalirk]

1 hour ago, Kintobor said:

So, as a suggestion, what are people's thoughts on bleeding out? If you do not get up within three turns your character dies?

That’s perfectly fine by me!  Personally I want the threat of character death to be a real one otherwise it just seems like an unnecessary feature that was added.

[Duvors]

4 hours ago, Kintobor said:

So, as a suggestion, what are people's thoughts on bleeding out? If you do not get up within three turns your character dies?

This seems like the simplest and most logical solution. Though I'd make it being stabilized rather than being revived that puts your character out of danger. I like the distinction between 'in no danger' and 'useful' it provides.

[Kintobor]

28 minutes ago, Duvors said:

This seems like the simplest and most logical solution. Though I'd make it being stabilized rather than being revived that puts your character out of danger. I like the distinction between 'in no danger' and 'useful' it provides.

I can agree with that. I'll then ask, if someone is stabilized can they be brought back to 1 HP if they take any sort of healing spell or healing item?

[karmajay]

Was character perma-death something that occurred in the older Heroica? I'm not sure how put off people would be if a character they built dies during a mission. Maybe it would be better if someone fails all the unstable mechanics they are basically sidelined the rest of the mission? 

[samurai-turtle]

24 minutes ago, Kintobor said:

I can agree with that. I'll then ask, if someone is stabilized can they be brought back to 1 HP if they take any sort of healing spell or healing item?

I they could do that now, if need to be. 

3 minutes ago, karmajay said:

Was character perma-death something that occurred in the older Heroica? I'm not sure how put off people would be if a character they built dies during a mission. Maybe it would be better if someone fails all the unstable mechanics they are basically sidelined the rest of the mission? 

No, what I think it was your character is revived with 1 Health. Plus they didn't get any experience from the fight. 

If you look at mission #2 @KotZ character went down in the first fight (and the second). And it was only a three man crew. So the mission would probably been over at that point. I think the three roll(s) might be for the best...

 

[Kintobor]

11 minutes ago, karmajay said:

Was character perma-death something that occurred in the older Heroica? I'm not sure how put off people would be if a character they built dies during a mission. Maybe it would be better if someone fails all the unstable mechanics they are basically sidelined the rest of the mission? 

So, in Heroica Fantasy perma-death was not a thing except for one instance where it was, and that was a specific quest: Chaos Comes to Eubric. There was an in universe relic that made it so if a hero fell in combat, they were not killed.

Heroica: GAtS does not have this feature. I think perma-death is a bit harsh a term. You can bring the character back, they simply lose all equipment, items, and credits.

What is the ruling on keeping a character dead and creating a new character? Do you keep your build and gain a new starting gear package?

[Zepher]

Here’s what I’d say about the two things:

I like three rounds unstable = dead. Then if someone drops in the final round of combat the MM can run a bunch of “Non-combat rounds” post-combat where they deal out the fate of the hero. It’s be crazy unlikely that the hero dies at that point (with medicine checks and regular hero rolls) but there’s still that threat. And it makes it more important to get them up while combat is still running. Solves both the problems I highlighted earlier.

As for perma-death, I’m frankly flexible. Games are meant to be fun. I personally like the threat, and know others will. But if someone doesn’t like it, I’m happy to let them suffer a penalty (lose items… maybe lose something like half character points or something?) and they can keep the character. It just matters that “dying” is a threat - I don’t care if people want to keep around the same character afterwards! If that’s more fun for them, they should absolutely just be allowed to do that!

[Duvors]

5 minutes ago, Kintobor said:

So, in Heroica Fantasy perma-death was not a thing except for one instance where it was, and that was a specific quest: Chaos Comes to Eubric. There was an in universe relic that made it so if a hero fell in combat, they were not killed.

Heroica: GAtS does not have this feature. I think perma-death is a bit harsh a term. You can bring the character back, they simply lose all equipment, items, and credits.

What is the ruling on keeping a character dead and creating a new character? Do you keep your build and gain a new starting gear package?

When your character dies you keep all the CP you accrued but loose all equipment you had. You then gain a new starting package, yes. It's up to you at that point weather you want to 'rebuild' your old character or create a new one.

1 minute ago, Zepher said:

As for perma-death, I’m frankly flexible. Games are meant to be fun. I personally like the threat, and know others will. But if someone doesn’t like it, I’m happy to let them suffer a penalty (lose items… maybe lose something like half character points or something?) and they can keep the character. It just matters that “dying” is a threat - I don’t care if people want to keep around the same character afterwards! If that’s more fun for them, they should absolutely just be allowed to do that!

Exactly. There's no reason someone can't play 'death' as being critically injured and having to be put in intensive care for a bit.

[Zepher]

Oh didn’t realize you kept the CP if you died. So then we don’t even need my half CP caveat if they want to keep their PC. They just keep them. 👍