Heroica RPG Rules & FAQ

[joeshmoe554]

One question regarding the recent changes to gold gathering. If an enemy drops treasure such as a gold bar or crown, does that allow gold to be stolen from that enemy or is it only if the enemy drops gold coins?

[Scorpiox]

As long as the rogue is still attacking an enemy, they are acting to help the party win the battle. If a healer refuses to heal a character who is helping to win the fight, that healer is no longer acting to help the party. They are acting incredibly selfishly. Denying the rogue loot, well, you can make a case for that. People might even agree with you. But to deny healing to a party member, that's costing your party a valuable source of damage and inhibiting your team's ability to complete the fight, even if they aren't targeting the suggested enemy. I don't know how many people you could rally behind that flag. Maybe a lot. Hard to say. But I certainly wouldn't.

No. If someone acts like a git and is only out to help themselves then they may as well not even play this game. Honestly, what is the point in doing something that you know will irritate others just so that you can gain some numbers on your profile? The idea that I have and will always have is this: one is permitted to do anything they wish in-character as long as it does not threaten enjoyment for anyone else. If a rogue refuses to fight anything without the incentive of personal reward, they have broken that rule and therefore I have no issue with the other party members doing the same back.

If you're planning on playing like this or encouraging others to do so, perhaps consider the consequences of such a style on the overall sense of fun for the rest of the community.

And quite frankly, the argument that "hey, I was going to give you items but now I can't" is purely childish.

[Waterbrick Down]

No. If someone acts like a git and is only out to help themselves then they may as well not even play this game. Honestly, what is the point in doing something that you know will irritate others just so that you can gain some numbers on your profile? The idea that I have and will always have is this: one is permitted to do anything they wish in-character as long as it does not threaten enjoyment for anyone else. If a rogue refuses to fight anything without the incentive of personal reward, they have broken that rule and therefore I have no issue with the other party members doing the same back.

If you're planning on playing like this or encouraging others to do so, perhaps consider the consequences of such a style on the overall sense of fun for the rest of the community.

And quite frankly, the argument that "hey, I was going to give you items but now I can't" is purely childish.

However rogues have always been considered the solo-selfish class by the community, so I wouldn't mind them actually attacking the ones that are mug-able. An enemy is still being attacked which means that it is still beneficial to the party. Now if a rogue goes deliberately targeting a weaker enemy just because it is mug-able when in fact the weaker enemy was designed for a weaker party member, then yes I might have some objections, but I need to balance that out with how much danger the party is actually in. To expect rogues to only take advantage of their job specialty only when it is convenient for the rest of the party seems slightly selfish to me on the party's part.

Remember also, that not everyone plays this game for the pleasant social interaction. Some people enjoy min-maxing which sometimes means that it will clash with other's more co-operative style. Balance is the key remember, we can't have everyone just focusing on RP and great party dynamics and we can't have everyone just out for themselves, we need both for this community to be what it is.

[Tachyon]

But isn't swils arguing the case where the rogue is still helping the party by attacking someone ?

Now usually the enemies who drop gold aren't the most important ones. As a rogue, the smartest thing to do is attack enemies who drop the gold. The more important ones are taken down by heroes of another class(Ranger, Knight, Barbarian) so in most cases you still will be farming gold.

2 negatives can occur in this situation. The first is that the QM purposly doesn't set any enemies with gold. The second is when the party leader is a prick and tells a rogue to attack the more important enemy just to deny the rogue gold.

[CorneliusMurdock]

How about we see how the new system works out before calling each other pricks and gits? Seriously, people.

WBD, I always assumed that since countering inflicts damage, the fragile effect would double it. I think its more clear cut than it affecting poison. I'm open to debate it, though, if you'd like.

[Scorpiox]

But isn't swils arguing the case where the rogue is still helping the party by attacking someone ?

Now usually the enemies who drop gold aren't the most important ones. As a rogue, the smartest thing to do is attack enemies who drop the gold. The more important ones are taken down by heroes of another class(Ranger, Knight, Barbarian) so in most cases you still will be farming gold.

2 negatives can occur in this situation. The first is that the QM purposly doesn't set any enemies with gold. The second is when the party leader is a prick and tells a rogue to attack the more important enemy just to deny the rogue gold.

I'm sorry if my meaning may have been unclear. There's nothing wrong with a rogue making some money if the situation allows it. i.e. there are a few enemies that are tactically the same, in this event I wouldn't stop a character choosing the one that can drop gold. However in other situations, such as one in which it is tactically vital for a rogue to attack one foe over another, I would expect the rogue to do their job. It's no case of other classes being supposed to target the most 'important' enemies, as in many circumstances the rogues are huge damage dealers and thus should pull their weight.

I shall ignore your last statement because I would like to avoid an argument. One thing I will say, however, is that you have misinterpreted completely what I have been saying; deliberately or otherwise.

[Waterbrick Down]

How about we see how the new system works out before calling each other pricks and gits? Seriously, people.

WBD, I always assumed that since countering inflicts damage, the fragile effect would double it. I think its more clear cut than it affecting poison. I'm open to debate it, though, if you'd like.

Nope, I think it makes sense that encouraged, weakened, and fragile should have an effect on Counterstriking.

I agree with CM and Kintober, let's wait it out. Besides, there is no rule that says we can't un-nerf something.

Edited July 10, 2013 by Waterbrick Down

[Sandy]

One question regarding the recent changes to gold gathering. If an enemy drops treasure such as a gold bar or crown, does that allow gold to be stolen from that enemy or is it only if the enemy drops gold coins?

Good question. To keep things simple, I'll say that treasures do not count as enemy carrying gold. For example, the Shy Shells in the Fields drop Black Pearls, which are worth gold, but it wouldn't make sense for them to carry stealable gold as well (even though they have up until now ).

[Zepher]

Fragile does effect counterstrike. Or at least it did in 66.

[Flare]

Fragile does effect counterstrike. Or at least it did in 66.

Yes I also am really sure that fragile and encouraged effect counterstriking (its not in the rules?)

Edited July 10, 2013 by Flare

[Sandy]

Yes I also am really sure that fragile and encouraged effect counterstriking (its not in the rules?

Counterstriking is a kind of an attack, so why wouldn't it be affected by these effects? This should be self-explanatory, in my opinion.

[Flare]

Counterstriking is a kind of an attack, so why wouldn't it be affected by these effects? This should be self-explanatory, in my opinion.

As people are asking about it, I suppose it is not self-explanatory. Personally I also see counterstriking as a kind of attack, but yeah, I guess some people see it differently.

[Rumble Strike]

In Quest #67, CJP said that as the Counterstrike was a hit based purely on level for strength, it could not be buffed by being Encouraged, which sounded fair at the time.

[Scubacarrot]

I'm pretty sure that one point counterstrikes were ruled to not be affected by anything but SP. Or something like that.

[CorneliusMurdock]

I agree that the wording of encouraged precludes it from helping counters but I don't remember any such ruling about it not being affected by anything but SP, Scuba. I don't see why weakened or fragile would not come into play for counterstrikes.

[Palathadric]

The issue I think might be psychological; subconsciously, not many people want either their class advantages to be impeded upon by another class, or to be dependent upon someone else's charity (a generous rogue) to gain an advantage. We all like being independently good at something without the help of another player, i.e. Clerics like being good at healing, Knights like being the ones to tank hits, Rangers like to be the ones dealing out a consistent amount of high damage, etc. Rogues just run counter to all of that.

Thank you, Waterbrick Down.

[Rumble Strike]

I agree that if an Enemy is Weakened or Fragile that the Counterstrike should take that into account.

[CMP]

I've always run it where effects are taken into account on Counterstrike.

[Palathadric]

I agree that if an Enemy is Weakened or Fragile that the Counterstrike should take that into account.

Certainly.

[Zepher]

Sandy did it that way too. Encouraged affected my strikes, which confused me because Scuba did not run it that way in 40, but I think that effects absolutely should effect counterstrike as anything else would.

[Flare]

After seeing that round in Quest 73 where rollimg a Shield does nothing whatsoever, it makes me feel sort of dubious on whether the nerf was for the better or worse. Wasn't shield supposed to be the best roll? Not an 'aim'.

[Waterbrick Down]

After seeing that round in Quest 73 where rollimg a Shield does nothing whatsoever, it makes me feel sort of dubious on whether the nerf was for the better or worse. Wasn't shield supposed to be the best roll? Not an 'aim'.

Everytime a Shaman, Druid, Cleric roll a Shield on a party with full health it's pretty much useless. Assassins just are not the best boss battlers.

[joeshmoe554]

After seeing that round in Quest 73 where rollimg a Shield does nothing whatsoever, it makes me feel sort of dubious on whether the nerf was for the better or worse. Wasn't shield supposed to be the best roll? Not an 'aim'.

Not always. A mage may get a magic burst and accidentally use an element the enemy is immune to, or a cleric may try attacking only to result in healing their party instead (still useful, just not the intended action). This can also be limited by QMs trying to give at least one enemy a gold drop, this fight doesn't have that because it was designed before the nerf was applied.

Edited July 11, 2013 by joeshmoe554

[Flare]

Hm, I see. Alright Sorry for the fuss!

[Brickdoctor]

You were a Warden (For a little while. Once or twice. Sort of.), you should know that Critical Hits are often much better than Shields.