Heroica RPG Rules & FAQ

[Asphalt]

I don't know why, but it makes me nervous that no one wants to change the class I am planning on moving into next.

[CMP]

I don't know why, but it makes me nervous that no one wants to change the class I am planning on moving into next.

Shhh, don't draw attention to it and just revel in the glories of Special Mirror before it gets nerfed.

[Scubacarrot]

Witch is too fun to change.

[The Chosen Minifigure]

Dang it! Just after I finish buying a shield and preparing to go Mystic Knight, Evoker looks really appealing.

[Palathadric]

Dragoon: I still don't agree with the arguments against mistrust, I think it would be better if mistrust applied to Dragoon's who switch out of the class and then come back into it. It's a class meant for the long haul. If there needs to be compromise maybe not let mistrust kick in till after level 40.

Perhaps there could be mistrust for a certain amount of quests/battles. so if you train your dragon early, the mistrust won't affect you as much, but when you try to train it when it's grown, there's more of a problem. Once the dragon is trained though, perhaps the dragoons should be able to switch out of their class at will. Perhaps the dragon likes napping...or whatever.

Necromancer: While Necromancer's burn through ether, I think they're doing it in a way that most mage classes should for the amount of power they wield. I'd be against this change.

I have to agree, I think...

[Asphalt]

Evoker was always really appealing. Seriously, summon elemental monsters to do your bidding.

[The Chosen Minifigure]

Yeah, but until now they were a bit weak. Now, though, they can deal just as much damage as your weapon!

[Lind Whisperer]

Black Knight: Are we worried Black Knight is too powerful?

Speaking from my own(limited, obviously) experience so far, I'd say it's just about balanced. Stealing loot isn't such a great ability to have over stealing gold, since I think most players add what they loot to the main loot, but it does at least give you an edge in bartering for which pieces you'd like(assuming, like in #122, you've looted some decent drops that you don't want).

Sounds like more of an issue with your QM, something you can easily address by talking it over with them in PM. This really concerns anyone, if you'd prefer to have your character portrayed in a different light in battle than hash them out privately.

Well put, and thank you.

[Flipz]

*sigh* Exhibit A why I'm burnt out on the game (hint: it's not the proposed rules changes, it's what came almost immediately after).

Alright, with my day off from work, I got time to think through the job class changes. Here are my suggestions, based on balancing and making ether more meaningful.

Minstrel: Nanny’s Lullaby removed, Battle Songs cost either 5 or 10 ether.

Dragoon: Mistrust removed.

Weather Mage: MIST causes additional ”misty” weather that affects all combatants by making them susceptible to all elements during the next round.

Any thoughts?

I'll only respond to the ones in which I actually have a horse to back.

Minstrel: Kill Nanny's Lullaby with fire, but RE the others, I agree that an Ether cost per target affected would be the best way to go.

Dragoon: I approve of this change. It was just plain too punitive. If people really want it back, though, here's what I recommend for all levels of the SHIELD past Hatchling: "The Dragon has a 3/4 chance to disobey orders and not perform their portion of Dragon's Wrath, reduced by 1/4 per Quest the hero has completed as a Dragoon." This adds a loyalty aspect to the class as originally intended, but doesn't make it a permanent punishment for things out of the player's control, and eventually lets them earn the trust completely enough that the player can freely switch classes if they aren't having fun.

Alchemist: I have to agree with Scuba. Chrysopoeia needs a change, to be sure, but I'm not sure this is the right one; it's just...too simple, and doesn't provide a good reason for it happening like the current version does. The Overkill Gloves probably also need a nerfing, but then again their money isn't guaranteed; if an enemy is immune to Fragile and the available elemental damage isn't super-effective (and if the player doesn't manipulate the enemies' HP properly), it's not nearly as much gold (not to mention other characters kill-stealing), whereas the current Chrysopoeia is completely player-controlled and guaranteed for every roll of 4 (no risk of KO from an attack). For the Overkill Gloves, I'd recommend making them not work with spells; this would go a LONG way in reducing players' ability to maximize their own numbers (particularly Weather Mages' ability to make their own spells do even more damage), and make them a LOT more reliant on how the QM builds the battle (since imbued elements can't be easily switched at will to suit each enemy).

Weather Mage: I'm of two minds about this. As a QM, I do think Weather Mage is somewhat crazily powerful in the right hands (i.e. mine), but as a player I detest rolls that needlessly hamper other party members. Here's what I'd change: weather should have an Ether cost per Round it's in play (which also means that a weather roll on a SHIELD will last until it's drained the Weather Mage's Ether completely), and Mist should act like it currently does (or similar to it), but should make all Ether costs doubled while it's in effect. (Thus, spells and Scrolls alike against affected targets will cost double Ether, as will the cost of the weather; if you wanted, you could then make Mist affect the entire enemy party, which would make ALL characters' Ether costs double--including healing and Minstrel songs).

...oh, all right, one more comment: That Evoker change? That's perfect. Watch the folks who are at or nearing Level 15; their reactions to the adjusted appeal of the classes will tell you everything about whether or not the changes will have the intended effects.

[Cutcobra]

First and most importantly, why no changes to the Money Maker trait?

If I don't comment on a change it's because I agree with it:

Ministrel: As everyone said, just make the costs equal to the number of allies/enemies. And I'm fine with no Lullaby as long as it can still be obtained as a drop.

Necromancer: What everyone said. No change needed.

Paladin: No need for the boost.

Weather Mage: It would be nice to add what Flipz said.

Alchemist: Here's my idea for Chrysopeia: Gain gold equal to the amount of items earned this battle/quest added to the alchemist's level.

Dang it! Just after I finish buying a shield and preparing to go Mystic Knight, Evoker looks really appealing.

No refunds.

Edited April 7, 2015 by Cutcobra

[Myrddyn]

Shaman: Blood Ritual costs 1 ether.

Paladin: Guardian Angel removes negative effects as well for 1 ether.

Druid: Roots of Life costs 1 additional ether per revival.

Black Knight: Arrogant Prick causes damage equal to 3x WP + level.

Evoker: Summoned spirits cause damage equal to 2x summoner’s level.

Any thoughts?

Druid is definitely a change that needs to be made, I think.

I also like the buff to evoker. I think 2x level should also apply to summon burst as well.

Black knight's Nerf makes sense.

I don't like the proposed change to paladin. It's a tank shield, and it does its job really well - better than any other tank shield. Temporarily removing negative effects during the guardian Angel round would be alright, but not completely removing them. Ether cost for the shield roll is not something I have much of an opinon on, but it would make the current battle in #127 quicker.

I don't like the proposed ether cost for shaman. It's a small change, but I think the reason you'd choose shaman over another class is its versatility and not having to buy as many tonics. Shaman usually does less damage than sage, and its healing is less useful than druid, but it could pull of a shield without ether, and its blood ritual always damaged the target. (As long as party members had lost HP, anyway).

Disclaimer: for some reason shaman is a fairly popular class, so maybe I'm wrong. (Gasp! Me, wrong!?)

[Kintobor]

I think Minstrel's change is fine. Ether burn is going to happen with the class, but with per target, certain songs can't even be played without wiping out your entire ether supply. A standard, basic Minstrel has at least 5+30+4=39 ether. Angelic Aria costs 10 ether. If there's anymore than 3 enemies, with the per target rule in place, I can't use the song. Even if there is only 3 enemies, that's 30 damage, which for AoE at level 30 kind of sucks. As well, after I attack, I can't use any other song. I now have to use one to two grand tonics to even use another song.

[Flipz]

That's fine. Maybe Angelic Aria in particular could use a lower Ether cost, but to be frank, we don't want Minstrels constantly singing all the time; we want them to have to attack more. As I see it, even after Sandy's proposed change, singing is still going to be (rightly) seen as the superior option, with plenty of people going sing->tonic->sing->tonic. If we make singing a LOT more expensive by making it cost Ether per target, maybe more Minstrels are going to be likely to actually use their attack rolls, thus making the class once again be based on dice instead of just declaring their action and it happening.

[Kintobor]

The issue for me stems from how often should a Minstrel perform per combat, and how much money am I going to need to invest in grand tonics to make the class work. Just to regain that thirty ether costs 60 gold with the use of two grand tonics, which adds up if I sing more than once per combat, heck, if I sing more than once per quest! At the rate of per target, I might as well pick a different class, since Minstrel's main support draw isn't worth it. I can do more benefit as a support player in Alchemist if we keep it's current 4 roll and Shield, and I can revive party members for five ether in Necromancer on an individual basis (It also has a better ether bonus upon entry to the class. Even though it's revival is based on the die roll, it's cheaper than Minstrel, and it's more lenient and not "worst case scenario" like DotP is designed to be).

Attacking with Minstrel has the draw of the 1/2 chance to stun, too. There's a decent reason to attack with Minstrel.

I guess I'll say I wouldn't be opposed to the idea of ether cost x # of targets if the ether costs on the songs were lowered to more reflect the change. At 5 and 10 ether, there's not a lot for strategy and planning with the class. Also, if the ether cost x # of targets is implemented, how will it affect the Encore Plectrum?

Edited April 8, 2015 by Kintobor

[Sandy]

Many of those changes was me trying to make the classes spend more ether, which in turn balances ether-based classes in comparison to those without ether in a way that doesn't take away their power.

I agree that for Paladins, the change would tilt the balance too much. For Necromancers, the main reason I want to reduce the ether cost of the SHIELD is that all other classes whose SHIELD revive allies the ether cost is much lower. Shamans and Druids will definitely get a increase in their ether cost, at least.

Minstrels are a tricky case. If the ether cost was changed to depend on the amount of allies/enemies, all the bonus Battle Songs that have been dropped in the past would have to be individually readjusted as well. Of course if the change was implemented, the songs would cost 1 or 2 ether per target, not 5 or 10...

[Flipz]

If the goal is to make Druids spend more Ether, maybe their healing should cost double since it removes negative effects as well as healing? That might be a bit much, tho, I dunno.

The issue for me stems from how often should a Minstrel perform per combat, and how much money am I going to need to invest in grand tonics to make the class work. Just to regain that thirty ether costs 60 gold with the use of two grand tonics, which adds up if I sing more than once per combat, heck, if I sing more than once per quest! At the rate of per target, I might as well pick a different class, since Minstrel's main support draw isn't worth it. I can do more benefit as a support player in Alchemist if we keep it's current 4 roll and Shield, and I can revive party members for five ether in Necromancer on an individual basis (It also has a better ether bonus upon entry to the class. Even though it's revival is based on the die roll, it's cheaper than Minstrel, and it's more lenient and not "worst case scenario" like DotP is designed to be).

Attacking with Minstrel has the draw of the 1/2 chance to stun, too. There's a decent reason to attack with Minstrel.

I guess I'll say I wouldn't be opposed to the idea of ether cost x # of targets if the ether costs on the songs were lowered to more reflect the change. At 5 and 10 ether, there's not a lot for strategy and planning with the class. Also, if the ether cost x # of targets is implemented, how will it affect the Encore Plectrum?

But realistically, how often do normal attacks actually happen with them? When you have the chance to Luckify or Hasten or Encourage your entire party for round after round after round with no chance of failure, why would you ever opt instead to attack an enemy (with the chance to roll Special Damage) and only get a little damage and a 50-50 chance of Stun in return?

To my mind, a Minstrel should be singing about as often as a Weather Mage forecasts weather; not something you're doing every Round, but once or twice a battle at a critical moment, changing the course of the fight in the process. Also note that Minstrels gain 5 Ether on a Miss roll, meaning that a Minstrel that's short on Ether can potentially bring themselves back into singing range within 3-4 attack rounds--again, giving them more of a reason to attack normally.

Sandy put it better than me with regards to how the song Ether costs would be reworked, so I'll respond to his post directly.

Many of those changes was me trying to make the classes spend more ether, which in turn balances ether-based classes in comparison to those without ether in a way that doesn't take away their power.

I agree that for Paladins, the change would tilt the balance too much. For Necromancers, the main reason I want to reduce the ether cost of the SHIELD is that all other classes whose SHIELD revive allies the ether cost is much lower. Shamans and Druids will definitely get a increase in their ether cost, at least.

Minstrels are a tricky case. If the ether cost was changed to depend on the amount of allies/enemies, all the bonus Battle Songs that have been dropped in the past would have to be individually readjusted as well. Of course if the change was implemented, the songs would cost 1 or 2 ether per target, not 5 or 10...

I don't think it should be a problem to alter the few "bonus" songs that have been dropped, particularly since most of them are variants of the same base song (Angelic Aria).

[Palathadric]

Minstrels are a tricky case. If the ether cost was changed to depend on the amount of allies/enemies, all the bonus Battle Songs that have been dropped in the past would have to be individually readjusted as well. Of course if the change was implemented, the songs would cost 1 or 2 ether per target, not 5 or 10...

I think if we increase the ether costs to say 2 ether per enemy/ally, it would be reasonable. You could even keep Nanny's Lullaby...possibly.

I don't know if it defeats the purpose though, but if we'll be cranking up ether costs, I wonder if we should bring back the ether cores?

[Myrddyn]

Actually perhaps having druid only revive allies with 1 HP after they heal the rest of the party would be better than increasing the ether cost?

[Sandy]

Actually perhaps having druid only revive allies with 1 HP after they heal the rest of the party would be better than increasing the ether cost?

That would be counter-intuitive. I do not want to make the class less potent at healing, I just want to make sure ether is spent more across the board.

[Chromeknight]

I actually think a flat ether rate for songs is all round easier. Both for QMs and players to strategise around.

I agree Nanny's lullaby (as it stood) needed to go. But a song which eliminates free hits for the round it's sung would be a winner.*

But I still think there's no compelling reason for a minstrel to attack. Ever. Even the chance of stunned.

And especially not with that shield roll. Because if you're attacking, it's a statement that there isn't a song you could sing that'd be more useful. Therefore any song (especially one chosen at random) is, self evidently, worse than doing Level in damage. An attacking minstrel is below tanks (and prob below artillery too), for suvivablity, which means a shield will nearly never benefit the party much.

Yes, I get the point that the new ether costs are going to drain down in an effort to force the minstrel to attack, which means that your 4 roll is so much better than your 1 roll. Is there any other class that's the case with? And forceing attacks isn't the same as mistrels having a reason to do it.

*or a song that steals ether from enemies, or that steals gold from enemies

[Sandy]

But I still think there's no compelling reason for a minstrel to attack. Ever. Even the chance of stunned.

And especially not with that shield roll.

What if an attack with a guaranteed stun to all enemies was added to the Minstrel's Shield-skill, along with the free random battle song? Would that be enough incentive for a minstrel to attack?

Alchemist with both nerfs will be a very boring class as a result of the change. I will change from it as a result. I do however, understand the change, for balance reasons, but then there's me asking why implement this change, and refuse to change the overkill gloves because it is powerful because of how you set up your character?

We are talking about job class changes here, not (admittedly overpowered) items. You can't really compare the two.

But what if CHRYSOPOEIA would double the value of any treasure-type items in the Alchemist's inventory? It would still keep the flavor of the skill, and the Alchemist could affect when to sell away his treasures, but still not be able to become a millionaire over one quest.

[Scubacarrot]

But what if CHRYSOPOEIA would double the value of any treasure-type items in the Alchemist's inventory? It would still keep the flavor of the skill, and the Alchemist could affect when to sell away his treasures, but still not be able to become a millionaire over one quest.

That sounds really good.

[Asphalt]

What if an attack with a guaranteed stun to all enemies was added to the Minstrel's Shield-skill, along with the free random battle song? Would that be enough incentive for a minstrel to attack?

We are talking about job class changes here, not (admittedly overpowered) items. You can't really compare the two.

But what if CHRYSOPOEIA would double the value of any treasure-type items in the Alchemist's inventory? It would still keep the flavor of the skill, and the Alchemist could affect when to sell away his treasures, but still not be able to become a millionaire over one quest.

Would it be a one time thing or compounding? If a piece is originally worth 60 gold and they hit Chrysopoeia 4 times would it stop at 120 or go all the way to 480?

[UsernameMDM]

Any decision on a dragon's HP stat?

[Sandy]

Would it be a one time thing or compounding? If a piece is originally worth 60 gold and they hit Chrysopoeia 4 times would it stop at 120 or go all the way to 480?

It would be multiplied with each Chrysopoeia, yes, but only until the point the Alchemist sells the treasure.

Any decision on a dragon's HP stat?

Ah, yes. I will change it so the dragon's health is 30 + Dragoon's level.