Heroica: Glory Amongst The Stars - Rules & FAQ

[samurai-turtle]

5 minutes ago, Zepher said:

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. 👍

Basically, but it would suck if you had tier 4 gear. 

 

20 minutes ago, Kintobor said:

 

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?

Yes, you keep all the character point you earned and have to pick a new starting gear package. 

14 minutes ago, Duvors said:

 

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.

I was wondering could someone make a new character but then go back to the old / original character. 

[KotZ]

I'm of the mind that I don't personally mind either way for it, although I would hate to lose all the equipment and the character I had been working on for years. It's one thing to lose an early character, but if the worst happens where you get unlucky enough to keep losing your low level character and never level up, that sucks.

I had the thought what if you're under X amount of character points, you're immune to perma-death, and then at X+1, is when characters can die permanently. Although to be fair, if Varen dies in combat, I most likely would "revive him" and explain he's either a clone, he miraculously came back with no equipment, or somehow figure it out, at least for the first time or two.

[Waterbrick Down]

I'm liking this idea of 3 rounds Unstable and the hero "dies" (Player dependent) and continuing to run rounds even if all enemies are defeated to give heroes a chance to get back up.

The original design around the idea of getting to keep your acquired CP was more so players didn't feel like they wasted months on a character. They still lose their items (granted items are intentionally not to be as crucial in this iteration of the game as in Heroica Fantasy) and the player can choose to either start over with a new character (but allot all of their saved up CP's) or simply revive their old character just with starting gear. The intention was to find a middle ground where death is still a threat to those who want it to be, and an inconvenience to those who don't want it to be.

[Duvors]

@Waterbrick Down I just noticed in the rules that under 'Equipment' it says 'you may only have one type of item equipped' where it should say 'you may only have one of each type of item equipped'.

[Zepher]

I'd like to suggest another minor rules tweak: I think quests should, inherently, give out 1-3 CP upon completion (depending on the length of the quest). I think that'd be a nice fun bonus to award, and would balance out quests that are a little longer (Boreal Express, for example, is running long and is mostly roleplay and mystery based so far, and that rocks, but the CP rewarded so far has only been 1, I believe). I like that progression will be relatively slow in this game - it makes it so newer players and older players can easily be on the same quest for a much longer time, and makes the math of everything much easier, but I'm thinking it might be mighty slow. Look at the classes, which require 5 proficiency. Assuming you start with one, you'd still need 2+3+4+5=14 CP to unlock a class, which looks like it'd take, at the current rate, well over a year... and that's assuming you rush only that proficiency and put no energy into anything else. So: my proposal I think will not be rule shattering, but just a little extra fun bonus.

[Waterbrick Down]

On 9/3/2021 at 7:36 PM, Duvors said:

@Waterbrick Down I just noticed in the rules that under 'Equipment' it says 'you may only have one type of item equipped' where it should say 'you may only have one of each type of item equipped'.

Thanks, will change for next revision

2 hours ago, Zepher said:

I'd like to suggest another minor rules tweak: I think quests should, inherently, give out 1-3 CP upon completion (depending on the length of the quest). I think that'd be a nice fun bonus to award, and would balance out quests that are a little longer (Boreal Express, for example, is running long and is mostly roleplay and mystery based so far, and that rocks, but the CP rewarded so far has only been 1, I believe). I like that progression will be relatively slow in this game - it makes it so newer players and older players can easily be on the same quest for a much longer time, and makes the math of everything much easier, but I'm thinking it might be mighty slow. Look at the classes, which require 5 proficiency. Assuming you start with one, you'd still need 2+3+4+5=14 CP to unlock a class, which looks like it'd take, at the current rate, well over a year... and that's assuming you rush only that proficiency and put no energy into anything else. So: my proposal I think will not be rule shattering, but just a little extra fun bonus.

Yep, I'm in agreement here. The trick is making it so that MM dole out the CP's consistently. I also want to ensure people don't try and elongate quests in hopes of milking out more CP's, nor do I want to punish those players who are super active and can get through a quest faster than anticipated. Maybe just leave it up to MM's to be more generous with CP allotment and if we see abuse then address it from there?

[The Legonater]

1 hour ago, Waterbrick Down said:

Thanks, will change for next revision

Yep, I'm in agreement here. The trick is making it so that MM dole out the CP's consistently. I also want to ensure people don't try and elongate quests in hopes of milking out more CP's, nor do I want to punish those players who are super active and can get through a quest faster than anticipated. Maybe just leave it up to MM's to be more generous with CP allotment and if we see abuse then address it from there?

Out of curiosity, do you have any sort of ratio in mind for length of quest per CP's gained? I've been finding myself pairing back the number of encounters in my quest planning - mostly for other reasons, but partially because I don't necessarily want to be rushing our heroes too far forward. It is looking like a bit of a longer quest, though, so maybe I shouldn't be as focused on that?

[Zepher]

13 hours ago, Waterbrick Down said:

Yep, I'm in agreement here. The trick is making it so that MM dole out the CP's consistently. I also want to ensure people don't try and elongate quests in hopes of milking out more CP's, nor do I want to punish those players who are super active and can get through a quest faster than anticipated. Maybe just leave it up to MM's to be more generous with CP allotment and if we see abuse then address it from there?

I’m of the opinion that you rule with the idea that everyone will treat things fairly and try to play the game, not game the system. If you see abuse you can refine, but I don’t think you need to pre-plan for it if you are in a trustworthy community. The relatively low 1-3 CP reward cap should make it pretty difficult to abuse too dramatically anyway.

[Waterbrick Down]

14 hours ago, The Legonater said:

Out of curiosity, do you have any sort of ratio in mind for length of quest per CP's gained? I've been finding myself pairing back the number of encounters in my quest planning - mostly for other reasons, but partially because I don't necessarily want to be rushing our heroes too far forward. It is looking like a bit of a longer quest, though, so maybe I shouldn't be as focused on that?

Right now, my thought is something like months. A one month quest is 1 CP, a 2 month 2 CP, etc. Adjust based on how active/unactive your party is.

2 hours ago, Zepher said:

I’m of the opinion that you rule with the idea that everyone will treat things fairly and try to play the game, not game the system. If you see abuse you can refine, but I don’t think you need to pre-plan for it if you are in a trustworthy community. The relatively low 1-3 CP reward cap should make it pretty difficult to abuse too dramatically anyway.

That's probably true. Ideally I'd like to see most heroes capable of choosing a class by their 4-5 mission, so we probably need CP appropriate to meet that mark.

[Waterbrick Down]

Rules Revision 1.1

• Adjust Equipment limitations to refer to kinds of equipment.
• Add Meditate as a standard action. Add question regarding infinite Spirit to FAQ
• Modified how character death works
• Character Death:
• Changed Opportunistic Attacks to no longer trigger from moving away from an enemy
• Added clarification to make it more clear that Heroes in the registration thread do not need 'approval' to post in the Hall thread.

[Classic_Spaceman]

@Waterbrick Down: I am not quite clear on exactly how Warding Bond works. Per the rules, it adds a +5 armour bonus "For next attack" - Does this mean that it lasts less than one turn, if the target with the ward up is attacked mid-turn? 
 

[Waterbrick Down]

1 hour ago, Classic_Spaceman said:

@Waterbrick Down: I am not quite clear on exactly how Warding Bond works. Per the rules, it adds a +5 armour bonus "For next attack" - Does this mean that it lasts less than one turn, if the target with the ward up is attacked mid-turn? 
 

Correct, the caster will have a +5 armor bonus against the next attack. If the target is attacked multiple times in a round, it only works against the first one.

[Classic_Spaceman]

36 minutes ago, Waterbrick Down said:

Correct, the caster will have a +5 armor bonus against the next attack. If the target is attacked multiple times in a round, it only works against the first one.

OK. 👍
If Zaria attacks Pierce, would Kinto only need to roll one success to bring the ward down (or does damage need to be dealt during the attack)? 
 

[Waterbrick Down]

5 minutes ago, Classic_Spaceman said:

OK. 👍
If Zaria attacks Pierce, would Kinto only need to roll one success to bring the ward down (or does damage need to be dealt during the attack)? 
 

Currently RAW (rules as written) the Spell only specifies that the target needs to be attacked, RAI (rules as intended) the Spell should specify someone to have rolled a Successful attack.

[Classic_Spaceman]

1 minute ago, Waterbrick Down said:

Currently RAW (rules as written) the Spell only specifies that the target needs to be attacked, RAI (rules as intended) the Spell should specify someone to have rolled a Successful attack.

OK - IMO, we should play this quest with RAI, and the rules should be amended to specify that the ward drops after successful attacks. 
 

[Duvors]

@Classic_Spaceman 

As a quick reminder, since attacking the tank would be a Proficiency Check rather than a Weapon Check, Yelana would not add her Weapon Mod to the roll. She would get the +3 die however, but that's a bit more swingy.

[Duvors]

@Classic_Spaceman, you can't scan the cube (Try Something - Perception? Check) and Attack on the same turn as those are both full actions.

[Classic_Spaceman]

42 minutes ago, Duvors said:

@Classic_Spaceman, you can't scan the cube (Try Something - Perception? Check) and Attack on the same turn as those are both full actions.

Ah, right. 😐
 

[samurai-turtle]

This has been bothering me for the last day or two. What qualifies as an auto success proficiency check? I am going to use my character as the example / question. 

 Polaris Ursaring [with M.I.L.E.S.]  (samurai-turtle) 
15 cycle old female "Chimeran" 
Character Points:  1/14 
Vitality:  8/8
Velocity:  2
Strength: 2 
Skill:  2
Smarts:  2
Spirit:  1/1
Proficiencies: Coding 1*, Engineering 1 (+1, tool), Medicine 1 (+1, tool), Melee Weapons 1, Nature 1,  Short Range Weapons 1, 
Spells:  Elemental Evocation, 
Credits:  0 
Equipment: Utility Belt (tool) Grants +1 Engineering or Medicine Check Success, Whirlwind Boomerang (Standard, Elemental, Short Range Weapon),
Inventory:  Mecha Strike (Standard, Kinetic, Melee Range Weapon), Plasma Potion (x2)

Their is the current stats on page 3 of mission 5. And then on page 4 of the same mission I was trying to do (or make) proficiencies checks.

On 9/9/2021 at 12:28 PM, samurai-turtle said:

Maybe I am bias here but I rather deal with any bear than some trickster "want to be genie" leprechaun. Their is a bedtime story my dad would tell about the Grizzly-Hoot. Maybe I will tell you about it later I need to remember the whole thing...

Well good thing I am around... starts to smell around for any food sources. 

 

I can cut open one of these Frost Hawk. It shouldn't take too long. Grabs some tools out of her Utility Belt starts the medical procedure. 

 

On 9/9/2021 at 2:30 PM, Waterbrick Down said:

Polaris Perception Proficiency Check (DC 1) - (3, 2, 5) 1 Success

Polaris does not identify any strongly smelling food sources nearby.

Polaris Medicine Proficiency Check (DC 3) - (1, 2, 3, 5, +1) 2 Success

Cutting open several Frost Hawks, Polaris is unable to identify anything recognizable within their gullets.

 

On 9/9/2021 at 8:50 PM, samurai-turtle said:

Well, I don't smell anything noticable. 

Standard stuff so far...

 

It looks like a fish scale, I think... 

 

On 9/9/2021 at 11:22 PM, Waterbrick Down said:

Polaris Nature Proficiency Check (DC 3,5) - (3,2,6,1) 1 Successes

Polaris inspects the scales but is unable to identify their origin.

But I did ask about here and the response I got. I did not feel like I got a good answer. 

On 9/9/2021 at 11:47 PM, samurai-turtle said:

OoC:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

@Waterbrick Down I think you might want to double check my proficiencies checks. Because I think I should be getting a +1 (or +2) more in some cases. And since I have the Utility Belt equipped how does the medical and engineering checks get modified? 

 Not to sure if this will change anything so far but I thought I should bring it up.

I think you might want to double check my proficiencies checks. Because I think I should be getting a +1 (or +2) more in some cases. And since I have the Utility Belt equipped how does the medical and engineering checks get modified? 

 Not to sure if this will change anything so far but I thought I should bring it up.

(For what ever reason the spoiler don't want to work right here. So I copy my comment in the "quote".) 

On 9/10/2021 at 1:05 AM, Waterbrick Down said:

MM Note: Everything seems in order. Polaris gets 4 dice for nature checks, 3 dice for perception checks, and 4 dice +1 auto success for medicine checks.

I guess for learning reason I think this needs cleared up. 

[Duvors]

2 hours ago, samurai-turtle said:

This has been bothering me for the last day or two. What qualifies as an auto success proficiency check?

Tools, Weapons, and Armor all provide auto successes on different checks. The bonuses they grant are not added to proficiencies or number of die rolled, but instead added after die are rolled to get the final value.

For instance, if a player with Medicine 1 and a Utility Belt were to attempt a DC 3 Medicine check, they would first roll 1 die for proficiency, and 3 additional die that all proficiency checks get. In the example let us say the player rolls the following:
(4,3,2,5,)
This is only 2 successes, so the check would fail... except the player has a Utility Belt, which grants +1 success on Medicine checks. This additional success is added directly to the prior result, bringing the number of successes up to 3 and passing the DC, causing the check to succeed.

Tools only grant their bonuses to certain Proficiencies listed in their stats, so a Utility Belt will add +1 success to only Engineering and Medicine checks. Checks with any other proficiency are unaffected.

Weapons add auto successes to the attacking side of Weapon Checks, while Armor adds successes to the defending side. Both types of items can add anywhere from 1 to 4 successes depending on their Grade. These bonuses are not added to Proficiency checks, even if that Proficiency check is made with a Weapon Proficiency.

Also, @Waterbrick Down, it occurs to me that the distinction between 'Weapon Check' and 'Weapon Proficiency Check' is rather difficult to parse. Perhaps the former could be renamed to Combat Checks?

[Zepher]

Basically proficiency adds more dice (more chances to succeed, but not guaranteed) whereas items add 1 automatically succeeded die roll (as if an additional die had been rolled and had been a 4-6). Yes?

[Waterbrick Down]

7 minutes ago, Zepher said:

Basically proficiency adds more dice (more chances to succeed, but not guaranteed) whereas items add 1 automatically succeeded die roll (as if an additional die had been rolled and had been a 4-6). Yes?

Correct, that's why I tend to type my results as (dice roll, dice roll, dice roll, etc., + Auto Success Bonus, - Auto Failure Bonus)

4 hours ago, Duvors said:

Also, @Waterbrick Down, it occurs to me that the distinction between 'Weapon Check' and 'Weapon Proficiency Check' is rather difficult to parse. Perhaps the former could be renamed to Combat Checks?

That's a good idea, and we could probably then distinguish between an Offensive Combat Check (where the player is the aggressor) and a Defensive Combat Check (where the player is the defender)

[Duvors]

@Classic_Spaceman @Kintobor @The Legonater

Again, shooting the barrel would be a Proficiency Check, not an attack. As such, Rallying will not add any die to the roll.

Edited September 13, 2021 by Duvors

[Classic_Spaceman]

On 9/13/2021 at 3:35 PM, Duvors said:

@Classic_Spaceman @Kintobor @The Legonater

Again, shooting the barrel would be a Proficiency Check, not an attack. As such, Rallying will not add any die to the roll.

Ah. 😐
I definitely second (third?) your and WBD's idea to change "Weapon Check" to "Combat Check" (or something of that nature), since the current wording is confusing! 😬
 

[Duvors]

Obscurement

The following is a proposed system based on the effects of the spell Photonic Modulation.

Obscurement is a system that comes into play whenever a character is, well, obscured. Most of this system can be modified to suit specific circumstances but the following is a general baseline.
Firstly, Obscurement comes in several levels. These are:

• Light Obscurement ~ -2 to Perception Checks and Ranged attacks.
• Moderate Obscurement ~ -4 to Perception Checks and Ranged attacks.
• Heavy Obscurement ~ -6 to Perception Checks and Ranged attacks.
• Total Obscurement ~ -8 to Perception Checks and Ranged attacks.

Obscurement has two forms. The first is AoE Obscurement which applies its penalties to all characters in a designated area, as well as all such checks into and out of it. Directional Obscurement on the other hand, requires some visual demonstration.

Round tiles are Pips, square ones are... well, Tiles. Pips demonstrate firing positions, Tiles demonstrate defending positions. The big yellow block is a source of Obscurement.

• The white Tiles are not adjacent to the source of the Obscurement and Attacks and Perception Checks against them are not affected by the Obscurement rules.
• The purple Tiles apply Obscurement penalties to Attacks and Perception Checks from the red, orange, and yellow Pips, but not the green Pips, who have an unobstructed line-of-sight on them.
• The indigo Tile does not apply penalties to the green and yellow Pips, but does to the orange and red ones.
• The blue Tile would only apply penalties to the red Pips
• The black Pips do not take penalties to their Attacks and Perception Checks due to being adjacent to the source of Obscurement.

Thoughts?