Heroica: Glory Amongst The Stars - Class Development Discussion

[Waterbrick Down]

2 minutes ago, Duvors said:

I'm fine with making it work more like Triage, but I have to ask; is Triage's restriction on how often someone can benefit from it per quest or per battle?

Battle. The idea was to create a healing "class" without the need for potions.

[Duvors]

4 minutes ago, Waterbrick Down said:

Battle. The idea was to create a healing "class" without the need for potions.

Excellent, changes made.

[Duvors]

@Waterbrick Down

After all this time, I've realized that I don't like the Medic's 'Exploitable Anatomy' trait, I don't think it fits either the role or the theme of the class. I'd much rather replace it with the Chemist's 'Proper Dosage' if that's all right with you.

[Waterbrick Down]

7 minutes ago, Duvors said:

@Waterbrick Down

After all this time, I've realized that I don't like the Medic's 'Exploitable Anatomy' trait, I don't think it fits either the role or the theme of the class. I'd much rather replace it with the Chemist's 'Proper Dosage' if that's all right with you.

Fine with me, are we swapping in something different for Alchemist then?

If Engineer is the non-healing consumable buffer, Grenadier is the grenade consumable class, and Medic is the healing consumable class, do we just focus on Alchemist as a debuffer/negative effect consumable class?

Also we should probably consider changing the traits for Hacker, Priest, and Warlock and enemies still don't have "types" yet.

[Duvors]

1 minute ago, Waterbrick Down said:

Fine with me, are we swapping in something different for Alchemist then?

If Engineer is the non-healing consumable buffer, Grenadier is the grenade consumable class, and Medic is the healing consumable class, do we just focus on Alchemist as a debuffer/negative effect consumable class?

Also we should probably consider changing the traits for Hacker, Priest, and Warlock and enemies still don't have "types" yet.

Probably. I was thinking of that 'combining consumables' suggestion of yours but I'm willing to go in other directions.

That seems fine for the most part, but there aren't really enough negative effect consumables (none in fact) to justify having a class for them. Would it be better to make the Alchemist a general consumable buffer and have the Engineer focus on Tools instead?

I actually think they're fine. Even without enemy types the descriptions are explicit enough that MMs will find it easy to determine what is and isn't affected by them. Though now you mention it, the Priest might need some changes. I'd at least like their current action to target more than just demons.

There, I've made a string of edits to the various classes. See what you think.

[Waterbrick Down]

16 minutes ago, Duvors said:

Probably. I was thinking of that 'combining consumables' suggestion of yours but I'm willing to go in other directions.

That one is a bit underwhelming I think, how about the two consumable per turn?

18 minutes ago, Duvors said:

That seems fine for the most part, but there aren't really enough negative effect consumables (none in fact) to justify having a class for them. Would it be better to make the Alchemist a general consumable buffer and have the Engineer focus on Tools instead?

Not a bad idea, we'd just have to shift the "Tinkering Hands" trait. Maybe something along the line of they can carry more tools or can create a tool on the fly a number of times per quest?

20 minutes ago, Duvors said:

I actually think they're fine. Even without enemy types the descriptions are explicit enough that MMs will find it easy to determine what is and isn't affected by them. Though now you mention it, the Priest might need some changes. I'd at least like their current action to target more than just demons.

Maybe demons and undead?

[Duvors]

21 minutes ago, Waterbrick Down said:

That one is a bit underwhelming I think, how about the two consumable per turn?

That seems better, but-

21 minutes ago, Waterbrick Down said:

Not a bad idea, we'd just have to shift the "Tinkering Hands" trait. Maybe something along the line of they can carry more tools or can create a tool on the fly a number of times per quest?

-I think giving them the current effects of the 'Tinkering Hands' trait and making this change to the Engineer is my preferred solution.

24 minutes ago, Waterbrick Down said:

Maybe demons and undead?

Better, but as not all undead are actually going to be evil I'm not sure about having it automatically apply to all of them. At the moment I'm leaning towards a generic 'unholy' category at the MM's discretion. I should note however that this ability has the potential to seriously mess with any horror themed missions an MM might want to run.

[Duvors]

The more I think about it, the more I dislike Turn Unholy. Consider: If an MM creates a mission revolving around a single unholy entity, then a Priest could conceivably use this action constantly to blast that entity into oblivion in a swift and anticlimactic manner. This would of course incentivize MM's to raise its Smarts attribute high enough to at least partially stymie this action. Conversely, Turn Unholy becomes less effective against large numbers of unholy enemies, as the check is made against all their Smarts combined. This means that it is both less likely to succeed and will do less damage if it does. Now, there are some things in the game that work sort of like this, but Turn Unholy stands out because of how situational it is. Demons are not going to be something people face as often as robots, spellcasters, and ordinary people. As the Priest won't get to use the action as often, I feel it ought to have some degree of effectiveness when used, but won't be able to just defeat the main boss by itself. Therefore, I propose an alternative:

Compelling Power (Action) - Make a Religion Check vs. unholy (MM discretion) targets' Smarts. On a Win, each target that failed is either Blinded, Frightened, Restrained, or Silenced (Choose one when taking action).
Possible Restriction; Each effect can only be applied to a target in this manner once per battle. (Each target separately, so if you failed to get a specific effect on a specific target, you can try again)

[Waterbrick Down]

1 hour ago, Duvors said:

-I think giving them the current effects of the 'Tinkering Hands' trait and making this change to the Engineer is my preferred solution.

Works for me. 

28 minutes ago, Duvors said:

The more I think about it, the more I dislike Turn Unholy. Consider: If an MM creates a mission revolving around a single unholy entity, then a Priest could conceivably use this action constantly to blast that entity into oblivion in a swift and anticlimactic manner. This would of course incentivize MM's to raise its Smarts attribute high enough to at least partially stymie this action. Conversely, Turn Unholy becomes less effective against large numbers of unholy enemies, as the check is made against all their Smarts combined. This means that it is both less likely to succeed and will do less damage if it does. Now, there are some things in the game that work sort of like this, but Turn Unholy stands out because of how situational it is. Demons are not going to be something people face as often as robots, spellcasters, and ordinary people. As the Priest won't get to use the action as often, I feel it ought to have some degree of effectiveness when used, but won't be able to just defeat the main boss by itself. Therefore, I propose an alternative:

Compelling Power (Action) - Make a Religion Check vs. unholy (MM discretion) targets' Smarts. On a Win, each target that failed is either Blinded, Frightened, Restrained, or Silenced (Choose one when taking action).
Possible Restriction; Each effect can only be applied to a target in this manner once per battle. (Each target separately, so if you failed to get a specific effect on a specific target, you can try again)

I'm ok with this, I wouldn't add the restriction yet. If a MM really doesn't want one of their big boss to get hit they can add in immunities or other methods to lessen the chance.

[Duvors]

So, I've been making a few classes in the future ideas section. The Courier and the Starwright (the latter of which I'm not that satisfied by) are me finishing off the vehicle ideas I had. The other two are the Inheritor - a take on the 'inborn magic' trope with a royal flair - and the Shadowdancer - which I just made and whose action may be a tad too complicated but was inspired by something @Yzalirk was attempting in Mission 5.

[Duvors]

I just post that and already I'm debating replacing the Gunslinger's 'you're better at these proficiencies' trait with something that lets them attack as a special action for a limited number of times. AND I just came up with basic ideas for 'Infantryman' and 'Officer' classes. I don't think my mind will ever be at rest on this subject.

Help.

Edited September 4, 2021 by Duvors

[The Legonater]

Just now, Duvors said:

I just post that and already I'm debating replacing the Gunslinger's 'you're better at these proficiencies' trait with something that lets them attack as a special action for a limited number of times. AND I just came up with basic ideas for 'Infantryman' and 'Officer' classes. I don't think my mind will ever be at rest on this subject.

I was thinking over the Gunslinger class, mostly because it's one I'll be pretty likely to take with Soren, so there may be some bias here. I get what you're going for with the Survival bonus, but I was wondering of a more Gunslinger-styles trait would be something like a boost to initiative? Though, that would probably go under the 'Quickdraw' label, which you already have something for. In any case, something a little more spicy than a Survival bonus could be fun.

[Duvors]

36 minutes ago, The Legonater said:

I was thinking over the Gunslinger class, mostly because it's one I'll be pretty likely to take with Soren, so there may be some bias here. I get what you're going for with the Survival bonus, but I was wondering of a more Gunslinger-styles trait would be something like a boost to initiative? Though, that would probably go under the 'Quickdraw' label, which you already have something for. In any case, something a little more spicy than a Survival bonus could be fun.

Question: Would you mind the existing Quickdraw trait being replaced with an initiative bonus if I also followed through with my initial idea for a replacement to Drifter?

[The Legonater]

10 minutes ago, Duvors said:

Question: Would you mind the existing Quickdraw trait being replaced with an initiative bonus if I also followed through with my initial idea for a replacement to Drifter?

That sounds good to me - with the way combat is built right now, I didn’t anticipate switching weapons a lot anyways. 

[Duvors]

16 hours ago, The Legonater said:

That sounds good to me - with the way combat is built right now, I didn’t anticipate switching weapons a lot anyways. 

Done.

@Waterbrick Down

Since I last posted I have:

• Revised the Starwright
• Created 'Officer' and 'Veteran' classes
• Scrapped the Starwright's revision and turned it into an 'Oracle' class
• Revised the Starwright, creating a new spell in the process
• Revised the Starwright, creating another new spell in the process
• Revised the Gunslinger

Edited September 4, 2021 by Duvors

[Zepher]

I hate to be a wet blanket on this, but I think it'll be a lot easier to start to define these classes as we get a little closer to having the proficiency needed to play as them. Right now we have ~35 classes. Heroica has only 16 players total, right now, so even assuming no overlap, that's 20 classes that get no play. I think it might actually be better to go in the other direction, whittling things down a little, combining "like" classes and plucking the best from each of them. I know it's fun to brainstorm, but I feel like each class should be able to really succinctly perform something others cannot, and what "roles" need to be filled or enhanced will become more obvious after ten or so quests. I know that's a real killjoy answer, especially as someone who has not been an active part of the brainstorming, but it's just my two-cents.

[Waterbrick Down]

6 hours ago, Duvors said:

Done.

@Waterbrick Down

Since I last posted I have:

• Revised the Starwright
• Created 'Officer' and 'Veteran' classes
• Scrapped the Starwright's revision and turned it into an 'Oracle' class
• Revised the Starwright, creating a new spell in the process
• Revised the Starwright, creating another new spell in the process
• Revised the Gunslinger

Thanks for tackling each of these.

• Starwright: I like it and the new spells are very fitting.
• Officer and Veteran: Officer feels like a mix of the Skald and the Warrior, I don't necessarily see it bringing anything unique. Veteran seems a rehash of Guardian
• Oracle: Is "Written In the Stars" intended to be # Spirit uses per mission?
• Gunslinger adjustments seem fair
• Courier is a nice addition
• Inheritor is another good generic spell caster ala Aetherdiver
• Shadowdancer: I'm not sure how this one stylistically differs from the Scoundrel

3 hours ago, Zepher said:

I hate to be a wet blanket on this, but I think it'll be a lot easier to start to define these classes as we get a little closer to having the proficiency needed to play as them. Right now we have ~35 classes. Heroica has only 16 players total, right now, so even assuming no overlap, that's 20 classes that get no play. I think it might actually be better to go in the other direction, whittling things down a little, combining "like" classes and plucking the best from each of them. I know it's fun to brainstorm, but I feel like each class should be able to really succinctly perform something others cannot, and what "roles" need to be filled or enhanced will become more obvious after ten or so quests. I know that's a real killjoy answer, especially as someone who has not been an active part of the brainstorming, but it's just my two-cents.

I think it's a valid opinion. Heroica GATS was originally designed to function without classes, the intention was for players to differentiate their characters via their proficiencies. As we went on however, we came to understand that while this was appreciated by some, other still felt like having classes would better carve out a role for their character to fill in an adventuring party. Thus the idea was born to create very specific niches that would provide some modest improvements to certain aspects of the game (proficiencies increases, removal of certain limitations, etc.) and a unique action they could bring to the table. While definitely more overwhelming in terms of the number of classes vs. Heroica 1.0 or even the number of current players, this is somewhat intentional. To have fewer classes I feel would require them to be able to express each of the potential niches within themselves causing each of the fewer classes to bloat to a point where they would become more of a character defining trait than the system was originally designed for. It's also worth noting that by having each class have a number of proficiencies associated with them, characters can switch fairly easily between a half dozen classes.

[Duvors]

8 hours ago, Waterbrick Down said:

• Starwright: I like it and the new spells are very fitting.
• Officer and Veteran: Officer feels like a mix of the Skald and the Warrior, I don't necessarily see it bringing anything unique. Veteran seems a rehash of Guardian
• Oracle: Is "Written In the Stars" intended to be # Spirit uses per mission?
• Gunslinger adjustments seem fair
• Courier is a nice addition
• Inheritor is another good generic spell caster ala Aetherdiver
• Shadowdancer: I'm not sure how this one stylistically differs from the Scoundrel

• 
• I agree, I just wanted to ask for an opinion before removing them
• Yes, it's modeled after the Scholar's action
• 
• 
• 
• Neither do I, removed. However since you mention the Scoundrel, are we sure we want Pickpocket to be an exclusive action rather than something anyone can attempt?

 

11 hours ago, Zepher said:

I hate to be a wet blanket on this, but I think it'll be a lot easier to start to define these classes as we get a little closer to having the proficiency needed to play as them. Right now we have ~35 classes. Heroica has only 16 players total, right now, so even assuming no overlap, that's 20 classes that get no play. I think it might actually be better to go in the other direction, whittling things down a little, combining "like" classes and plucking the best from each of them. I know it's fun to brainstorm, but I feel like each class should be able to really succinctly perform something others cannot, and what "roles" need to be filled or enhanced will become more obvious after ten or so quests. I know that's a real killjoy answer, especially as someone who has not been an active part of the brainstorming, but it's just my two-cents.

 

8 hours ago, Waterbrick Down said:

I think it's a valid opinion. Heroica GATS was originally designed to function without classes, the intention was for players to differentiate their characters via their proficiencies. As we went on however, we came to understand that while this was appreciated by some, other still felt like having classes would better carve out a role for their character to fill in an adventuring party. Thus the idea was born to create very specific niches that would provide some modest improvements to certain aspects of the game (proficiencies increases, removal of certain limitations, etc.) and a unique action they could bring to the table. While definitely more overwhelming in terms of the number of classes vs. Heroica 1.0 or even the number of current players, this is somewhat intentional. To have fewer classes I feel would require them to be able to express each of the potential niches within themselves causing each of the fewer classes to bloat to a point where they would become more of a character defining trait than the system was originally designed for. It's also worth noting that by having each class have a number of proficiencies associated with them, characters can switch fairly easily between a half dozen classes.

I'm with WBD to some extent here, but looking over the current list we have I sometimes feel as if certain classes are present simply because we think they should be there rather than actually having a thematic or mechanical niche for them to fill. The Prosecutor and Outlander are two in particular I wouldn't be sad to dispense with.

[Waterbrick Down]

7 hours ago, Duvors said:

• 
• I agree, I just wanted to ask for an opinion before removing them
• Yes, it's modeled after the Scholar's action
• 
• 
• 
• Neither do I, removed. However since you mention the Scoundrel, are we sure we want Pickpocket to be an exclusive action rather than something anyone can attempt?

 

 

I'm with WBD to some extent here, but looking over the current list we have I sometimes feel as if certain classes are present simply because we think they should be there rather than actually having a thematic or mechanical niche for them to fill. The Prosecutor and Outlander are two in particular I wouldn't be sad to dispense with.

• I like some of the traits/actions on the Officer/Veteran, I simply feel their mechanical niches are already covered.
• Good to go on "Written in the stars" then.
• In battle I think yes as it can seriously hamper an enemy if you take one of their weapons or consumables.

Regarding Prosecutor, it always felt to me like it was supposed to be the anti-mage martial character, but that was just me. Outlander I'm not quite sold on as I feel we need a "ranger" equivalent and the outlander was the closest thing.

[Duvors]

39 minutes ago, Waterbrick Down said:

• I like some of the traits/actions on the Officer/Veteran, I simply feel their mechanical niches are already covered.
• Good to go on "Written in the stars" then.
• In battle I think yes as it can seriously hamper an enemy if you take one of their weapons or consumables.

• So do I, but I'd rather avoid mechanical redundancy.
• 
• I agree, but on the other hand it's existence sort of blocks players without the class from using Sleight-of-Hand to pickpocket anything, which is a problem because the FAQ specifically notes that as something Sleight-of-Hand can do. I'd feel much better about it if it applied specifically to Weapons, Armor, or Grenades as those seem to be the things that would cause the most issues if taken.

50 minutes ago, Waterbrick Down said:

Regarding Prosecutor, it always felt to me like it was supposed to be the anti-mage martial character, but that was just me. Outlander I'm not quite sold on as I feel we need a "ranger" equivalent and the outlander was the closest thing.

Hardly unreasonable, I just feel it might be spread a little thin. But I think it'd be best to see it in action first. Regarding the Outlander however, it feels to me like you just said that you think we need a ranger because you think we need a ranger - presumably because D&D and Heroica 1 have/had them. What is a ranger? What role does it fulfill in-game? What image do we want to invoke? Is it Robin Hood? Aragorn? A forest ranger? The Arizona Ranger from that one song? They may all seem similar, but there are some large distinctions in what they do. Is the ranger a spellcaster, trapper, dual wielder, beastmaster, or sniper? Looking at the Outlander it seems to be good at noticing things, not dying, and killing things, with its proficiencies implying sniperisims and outdoor living on the side. Bluntly put, I think it's boring and vague and exists simply to fill a thematic archetype that we don't even know if we need and it represents poorly anyway.

[Duvors]

In all honesty I was probably laying it on a little thick just now. The point I wanted to make is that, aside from Proficiency bonuses, the Outlander doesn't do anything particularly ranger-ish. Tough and Focused are both excellent, but they're so generic you could apply them to most any class, meaning that the Outlander doesn't have much of an identity overall.

[Zepher]

I want to be clear in that I wasn't advocating in cutting anything in particular just yet. Again, I've not been part of the brainstorming, and a lot of the classes seem super cool. I just was suggesting taking a little more time to observe how battles/challenges/puzzles/social situations actually run, and then modifying classes to fill the observed niches.

Another idea I've had, and again just spit-balling because, again, was not part of the pre-thinking. Organizing classes around a single proficiency might be an interesting way to limit them/define what they are meant to do. I know that'd originally mean some re-aligning and reshuffling of abilities, and understand the want for people with different proficiency builds to have access to the same class & people with the same proficiency build to have access to different classes. But if we lower the threshold slightly, that might mean people would still have access to a few classes after a while, and would solve therefore address the above concern. Just a thought, even if it's just a kernel of one we could build off.

[Waterbrick Down]

3 hours ago, Duvors said:

Hardly unreasonable, I just feel it might be spread a little thin. But I think it'd be best to see it in action first. Regarding the Outlander however, it feels to me like you just said that you think we need a ranger because you think we need a ranger - presumably because D&D and Heroica 1 have/had them. What is a ranger? What role does it fulfill in-game? What image do we want to invoke? Is it Robin Hood? Aragorn? A forest ranger? The Arizona Ranger from that one song? They may all seem similar, but there are some large distinctions in what they do. Is the ranger a spellcaster, trapper, dual wielder, beastmaster, or sniper? Looking at the Outlander it seems to be good at noticing things, not dying, and killing things, with its proficiencies implying sniperisims and outdoor living on the side. Bluntly put, I think it's boring and vague and exists simply to fill a thematic archetype that we don't even know if we need and it represents poorly anyway.

Ooo Ranger hot-take.  Point taken about how their mechanical abilities don't necessarily inspire the flavor we're going for. In my head, the ranger is the survivalist. He's the guy you look to when something needs to be tracked or you need to figure out how to survive the natural elements. They're the trail guides, the bounty hunters, the ones who are always prepared. So in some ways they're traits are going to be more generic, simply because they're meant to handle everything to some extent. Maybe not as well as a specialist, but well enough to survive.

43 minutes ago, Zepher said:

I want to be clear in that I wasn't advocating in cutting anything in particular just yet. Again, I've not been part of the brainstorming, and a lot of the classes seem super cool. I just was suggesting taking a little more time to observe how battles/challenges/puzzles/social situations actually run, and then modifying classes to fill the observed niches.

Another idea I've had, and again just spit-balling because, again, was not part of the pre-thinking. Organizing classes around a single proficiency might be an interesting way to limit them/define what they are meant to do. I know that'd originally mean some re-aligning and reshuffling of abilities, and understand the want for people with different proficiency builds to have access to the same class & people with the same proficiency build to have access to different classes. But if we lower the threshold slightly, that might mean people would still have access to a few classes after a while, and would solve therefore address the above concern. Just a thought, even if it's just a kernel of one we could build off.

It's a valid take and I think it's something we can adjust as time goes on and we see folks try out the classes. Is your spit-ball idea, to drop the required proficiency to say 3, but limit each class to only have one associated proficiency?

[Duvors]

3 hours ago, Zepher said:

I want to be clear in that I wasn't advocating in cutting anything in particular just yet. Again, I've not been part of the brainstorming, and a lot of the classes seem super cool. I just was suggesting taking a little more time to observe how battles/challenges/puzzles/social situations actually run, and then modifying classes to fill the observed niches.

Don't be, it's nice to have a third person in the 'room' and it gave me an excuse to address something that's worrying me.

3 hours ago, Zepher said:

Another idea I've had, and again just spit-balling because, again, was not part of the pre-thinking. Organizing classes around a single proficiency might be an interesting way to limit them/define what they are meant to do. I know that'd originally mean some re-aligning and reshuffling of abilities, and understand the want for people with different proficiency builds to have access to the same class & people with the same proficiency build to have access to different classes. But if we lower the threshold slightly, that might mean people would still have access to a few classes after a while, and would solve therefore address the above concern. Just a thought, even if it's just a kernel of one we could build off.

Are the 'single proficiency classes' suggestion and the 'class threshold lowering' suggestion part of the same idea or separate? Because how I'd implement something like this would be to lower the threshold for multi-proficiency classes but have single-proficiency classes still require at least five ranks.

 

3 hours ago, Waterbrick Down said:

Ooo Ranger hot-take.  Point taken about how their mechanical abilities don't necessarily inspire the flavor we're going for. In my head, the ranger is the survivalist. He's the guy you look to when something needs to be tracked or you need to figure out how to survive the natural elements. They're the trail guides, the bounty hunters, the ones who are always prepared. So in some ways they're traits are going to be more generic, simply because they're meant to handle everything to some extent. Maybe not as well as a specialist, but well enough to survive.

Funnily enough, I just came up with something in the 'handle everything' vein for another class; the Courier.

A suggestion: switch around the Outlander's 'Tough' and the Courier's 'I Got This'. Rename the first to 'Haven't Gotten This Far' and the second to 'Resourceful'. As a possible further change, remove 'Focus', give it's effect to the Crusader's 'Smite' and replace it with the following;

 - Splint (Action) - Make a Survival Check on an adjacent ally (can target self). Target receives Vitality = # successes. Vitality gained this way disappears at the end of combat.

That might be a little too derivative of the Medic to follow through with, but you get the idea. Something that allows the Survival proficiency to contribute directly to your continued survival.

[Duvors]

So I've just gone and changed the syntax of the class document to represent the proposed name change for combat checks. I've also altered the Detective's action slightly and changed the effect of the Hacker's 'Vulnerable Circuitry' trait.

Also, inspired by the Berserker's role a a melee class and the Gunslinger's short range role, I've made provisional Soldier and Sniper classes as long range and artillery specialists specifically.