Heroica RPG Rules & FAQ

[UsernameMDM]

Thanks Sandy, but I think it should be a consistent rule one way or the other.

I agree. So which one is it?

[PsyKater]

In my opinion the "confused to all" Special is a little bit OP. It has destroyed nearly every battle it is in. Even with the neutralizer it is very hard to handle.

[Jebediahs]

The confuse all specials are not overpowered but are more devastating because most heroes have only been concerned with protecting themselves from the blind and sealed effects, neglecting confusion immunity. It's not the enemies fault players have failed to properly protect themselves. On that note, En Sabah Nur has a Scroll of Confusion he would be willing to sell for 270% of the normal scroll price. :-D

[Waterbrick Down]

I agree and having a bunch of remedies on hand is definitely a valid strategy as well.

[CMP]

I agree and having a bunch of remedies on hand is definitely a valid strategy as well.

Well, you haven't had to buy any in months, with how many the Fields give you...

[Brickdoctor]

Thanks Sandy, but I think it should be a consistent rule one way or the other.

Agreed. The QMs can create ways for a party to escape, but I don't think they should be above the rules when doing so.

[Sandy]

Agreed. The QMs can create ways for a party to escape, but I don't think they should be above the rules when doing so.

But this was one of the things that was not clearly defined in the rules. Counterstriking using the gloves is not strictly speaking an action, so it depends on how a QM interpretates "there is 1/2 chance [the confused person] will act against an ally instead of an opponent".

Another thing up for QM's interpretation is how the Free Hits are divided among the party. The rules say "in the order of action", but to my recollection, I've always neglected extra turns given by hastening, instead aiming the Free Hits according to the first turn each hero takes to divide the damage more equally. Again, some people do it differently.

[Brickdoctor]

But this was one of the things that was not clearly defined in the rules. Counterstriking using the gloves is not strictly speaking an action, so it depends on how a QM interpretates "there is 1/2 chance [the confused person] will act against an ally instead of an opponent".

Another thing up for QM's interpretation is how the Free Hits are divided among the party. The rules say "in the order of action", but to my recollection, I've always neglected extra turns given by hastening, instead aiming the Free Hits according to the first turn each hero takes to divide the damage more equally. Again, some people do it differently.

I see. All right, then.

[Zepher]

I'm okay with a thing or two being up to the QM as long as it doesn't change mid-quest.

[UsernameMDM]

Are creatures with double types with one being Ancient still weak to the elements their other type is weak against?

Should Messie take double damage from Lightning & Wood?

Messie

*Immune to all negative effects and sudden death*

Type: Aquatic/Ancient

Level: 58

Health: 1891/1933

Special: Just A Myth - Messie dives underwater, causing all attacks against it to miss for the remainder of the round. Causes the confused-effect to all opponents.

Drops: 6 Silver Ore (Worth 60 gold)

Note: Messie needs to be defeated with a fire-elemental attack, otherwise it will regenerate with two heads (ie. two Messies will appear in full health).

[PsyKater]

Ancient enemies are not weak against any element. Ethereal enemies are immune to all elements.

My understanding:

The first sentence may sound like immunity but it just states that this enemy type has no elemental weakness. Especially the second sentence makes it clear: Ethereal enemies are immune to elements. If ancient were as well, then it should say so.

As enemy types and their weaknesses and immunities stack (Aquatic/Beast is weak to Fire, Ice, Lightning and Wood and immune to Water), Messie is still Aquatic (weak to Lightning and Wood, immune to Water). If it would be Ethereal/Aquatic it would be weak to nothing and immune to every element.

[Etzel]

My understanding:

The first sentence may sound like immunity but it just states that this enemy type has no elemental weakness. Especially the second sentence makes it clear: Ethereal enemies are immune to elements. If ancient were as well, then it should say so.

As enemy types and their weaknesses and immunities stack (Aquatic/Beast is weak to Fire, Ice, Lightning and Wood and immune to Water), Messie is still Aquatic (weak to Lightning and Wood, immune to Water). If it would be Ethereal/Aquatic it would be weak to nothing and immune to every element.

That seems logical, but I doubt that was the intention when this monster was created. I think it's meant to be immune to Water and weak to nothing, otherwise it would just be the same as normal Aquatic monsters.

[Waterbrick Down]

That seems logical, but I doubt that was the intention when this monster was created. I think it's meant to be immune to Water and weak to nothing, otherwise it would just be the same as normal Aquatic monsters.

If that was the case, I'd say slapping an Immune to Water status would have worked just as well. Edited August 1, 2013 by Waterbrick Down

[Brickdoctor]

Ancient: No weaknesses, no strengths. Basically I think it has no effect if combined with another type, since secondary types maintain their weaknesses and strengths. Ancient Aquatic has all the strengths and weaknesses of a normal Aquatic enemy.

Ethereal: Immune to each element, but secondary types maintain their weaknesses and strengths. (So Ethereal Aquatic takes normal Damage from elements strong against Aquatic, with the weakness against Ethereal canceling out the strength against Aquatic, for example.)

[Flare]

Ancient: No weaknesses, no strengths. Basically I think it has no effect if combined with another type, since secondary types maintain their weaknesses and strengths. Ancient Aquatic has all the strengths and weaknesses of a normal Aquatic enemy.

Ethereal: Immune to each element, but secondary types maintain their weaknesses and strengths. (So Ethereal Aquatic takes normal Damage from elements strong against Aquatic, with the weakness against Ethereal canceling out the strength against Aquatic, for example.)

I think you're wrong with the Ancient paragraph. In my opinion if an enemy is Ancient/Aquatic, that means it has no weaknesses (definion of Ancient) which means it cancels out the aquatic weaknesses, but it still retains its immunity to water.

So pretty much Sandy confused us for no reason by having to mix Ancient with another type He could've just said 'Immune to water'.

Edited August 1, 2013 by Flare

[Sandy]

Brickdoctor is right, Messie is just a regular Aquatic-enemy when it comes to elements. There is one reason for the "Ancient"-type to be there, though, and that is Hunters.

[UsernameMDM]

Brickdoctor is right, Messie is just a regular Aquatic-enemy when it comes to elements. There is one reason for the "Ancient"-type to be there, though, and that is Hunters.

So it takes double damage from lighting & wood? That is what I am reading.

[Flare]

Brickdoctor is right, Messie is just a regular Aquatic-enemy when it comes to elements. There is one reason for the "Ancient"-type to be there, though, and that is Hunters.

Oh, alright

[Zepher]

You might want to put that in the FAQ then, I've always counted it as one Free Hit per turn, not per hero.

It's one of the things Sandy has said may vary from quest to quest. I think a lot of rules are okay to not be written down as long as the QM is consistent within their own quest and answers how they'll work honestly should the player ask.

[Sandy]

If you read the "Free Hits" section from the rules, it clearly says that one untargetted enemy gets a Free Hit on the first hero in the battle order, a second enemy gets to hit the second hero, etc. I think that's pretty clearly said that it doesn't matter how many turns one hero takes, he or she will always get one Free Hit unless the number of untargetted enemies exceeds the number of party members.

[Palathadric]

If you read the "Free Hits" section from the rules, it clearly says that one untargetted enemy gets a Free Hit on the first hero in the battle order, a second enemy gets to hit the second hero, etc. I think that's pretty clearly said that it doesn't matter how many turns one hero takes, he or she will always get one Free Hit unless the number of untargetted enemies exceeds the number of party members.

Wow! I can see this being both very good and very bad for some parties.

[Rumble Strike]

That certainly hasn't been how I calculated it in my Quests, and it certainly would affect battle orders and strategies if it's handled in different ways. I'm all for QM descrecion, I guess this would be something you ask the QM about first.

[Palathadric]

Just wondering, if a Black Knight is being a Prick and steals the loot from a gold-carrying enemy, can rogues still steal gold from that enemy? I assume, yes, but just want to be sure.

[Capt.JohnPaul]

Just wondering, if a Black Knight is being a Prick and steals the loot from a gold-carrying enemy, can rogues still steal gold from that enemy? I assume, yes, but just want to be sure.

I'm sorry I'm such a prick. I assume yes too, because it still dropped gold.

Edited August 1, 2013 by Capt.JohnPaul

[UsernameMDM]

I would say yes since Sandy indicated the stealing ability takes from a 'hidden stash.'