Heroica RPG Rules & FAQ

[Endgame]

A price hike still favours the Rogue-based classes though.

Cuts the amount of consumables they buy in half, while still allowing over classes to purchase them and not get snubbed by the Rogue's income too heavily.

[Etzel]

Cuts the amount of consumables they buy in half, while still allowing over classes to purchase them and not get snubbed by the Rogue's income too heavily.

No, other classes won't afford to buy the consumables, which will make them exclusive to the rogue classes.

I'm still for a positive effect cap. Max. 1 positive effect per player. Makes the battles easier for the QMs to calculate and plan, and limits the use of consumables in one. Sandy already proved in #75 Falling Stars that fully buffed heroes are ridiculously overpowered. This would also help bridge the gap between the rich rogues and the poorer heroes.

[Endgame]

The other proposed solution removes them entirely, while a price hike allows everyone to get it - and Rogues would no longer be able to buy them religiously.

[Waterbrick Down]

The other proposed solution removes them entirely, while a price hike allows everyone to get it - and Rogues would no longer be able to buy them religiously.

It depends on the issue we're trying to resolve. If the issue is the gap between rogues and other classes using consumables than raising the price will not fix the issue, total removal would. If the issue is rogues are buying too many consumables than yes raising the price would fix the issue.

[Etzel]

The other proposed solution removes them entirely, while a price hike allows everyone to get it - and Rogues would no longer be able to buy them religiously.

It depends on the issue we're trying to resolve. If the issue is the gap between rogues and other classes using consumables than raising the price will not fix the issue, total removal would. If the issue is rogues are buying too many consumables than yes raising the price would fix the issue.

While adding a cap on the positive effects will fix both issues since everyone will be able to afford the consumables if less is needed and the rogues won't have any need for tons of them.

[Endgame]

Why harm every single class in such a severe way just because of the rogues?

[Etzel]

Why harm every single class in such a severe way just because of the rogues?

I think it's more fair than just punishing the rogues...

Besides, I feel it's not really harming anyone. It brings up another tactical level to the players where they have to chose which effect they think will help them the most in the battle, instead of just stack all of them.

[Endgame]

It's harming everyone - if they can scrape up the money for the consumables, they should be able to use the bloody things.

[Kintobor]

You're assuming most rogues have a sticky gloves combo, which isn't true. Witches couldn't steal gold. Karie was almost always been hard pressed for cash. I can hardly afford consumeables, ether, and attempt to get the witch's talisman, and that's with the buff to witch. Generalizing all rogues as rich is a little unfair.

[Etzel]

It's harming everyone - if they can scrape up the money for the consumables, they should be able to use the bloody things.

They can still use them, just not over-use them. And it's still better to harm everyone, instead of just a few, don't you think?

You're assuming most rogues have a sticky gloves combo, which isn't true. Witches couldn't steal gold. Karie was almost always been hard pressed for cash. I can hardly afford consumeables, ether, and attempt to get the witch's talisman, and that's with the buff to witch. Generalizing all rogues as rich is a little unfair.

Not sure if directed to my or JimB's suggestion, but I never assumed such thing. My suggestion lessens the difference between the rich and the poor regarding the consumables without altering the price.

[Pyrovisionary]

Etzel has the right Idea I think.

[Kintobor]

I don't really see how it helps. Then Sarge, you yourself would have to effectively remove your Pegleg of Hastening, since that fills up your one positive effect slot. We need to let things run their course. As Flipz has said, this is the aftermath of the rogue debate. The money will disappear, we simply need to let it disappear.

[Flare]

About the buffing consumables - man can people never stop finding things to complain about!? Just leave it be, there is not such a huge problem...

It is decided then:

From now on, Counterstrike Gloves will deal damage equal to damage taken from a Free Hit back to the enemy.

Loophole fixed (I hope)! Thanks to everyone for your contributions to this discussion.

Hey, is it just me or were you telling me just a little while ago how ridiculous this idea was?? Yes, I think the loophole is fixed now.

[Etzel]

I don't really see how it helps. Then Sarge, you yourself would have to effectively remove your Pegleg of Hastening, since that fills up your one positive effect slot. We need to let things run their course. As Flipz has said, this is the aftermath of the rogue debate. The money will disappear, we simply need to let it disappear.

About the buffing consumables - man can people never stop finding things to complain about!? Just leave it be, there is not such a huge problem...

It's really not about the rogue debate. Almost everyone uses consumables in the battles and it makes it harder and harder for the QMs to balance. The problem is not rogues buying consumables, the problem is too many positive effects in the battles which forces the QMs to counter with more negative effects, passive specials, immunity to everything and a bunch of other things that makes the game too complicated and vulnerable to loopholes like the wait-out-counterstrike-tactic for example.

I'm willing to compromise though. Maybe just 1 positive effect is too harsh, so how about 2? Still a lot better than allowing 3 or more in my opinion.

[Kintobor]

So we're fixing the addition of more rules with the addition of more rules?

If a party is relying on buffs throughout every battle, something is wrong with the enemies, not the party. If your saying there's too many positive effects, than state which ones you think need to go. We don't need to turn this into Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, with rules for everything. This game works due to it's simplicity, and that's why it works for some of the more casual roleplayers. If heroes are deciding to continue to buy more consumeables, then stop dropping money, and start dropping potions and ethers.

[Flare]

It's really not about the rogue debate. Almost everyone uses consumables in the battles and it makes it harder and harder for the QMs to balance. The problem is not rogues buying consumables, the problem is too many positive effects in the battles which forces the QMs to counter with more negative effects, passive specials, immunity to everything and a bunch of other things that makes the game too complicated and vulnerable to loopholes like the wait-out-counterstrike-tactic for example.

I'm willing to compromise though. Maybe just 1 positive effect is too harsh, so how about 2? Still a lot better than allowing 3 or more in my opinion.

I don't think its as large of an issue as you are making it. Really, I don't think this is a real issue that needs to be dealt with, especially if this is not about the rogue debate.

[Etzel]

So we're fixing the addition of more rules with the addition of more rules?

If a party is relying on buffs throughout every battle, something is wrong with the enemies, not the party. If your saying there's too many positive effects, than state which ones you think need to go. We don't need to turn this into Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, with rules for everything. This game works due to it's simplicity, and that's why it works for some of the more casual roleplayers. If heroes are deciding to continue to buy more consumeables, then stop dropping money, and start dropping potions and ethers.

The addition of a positive effect limit is much easier to keep track of then a bunch of different effects in a battle. It's a really simple rule that will make the QM's work a lot easier. Parties nowadays are relying on consumables to get through battles because they are forcing the QMs to come up with more complicated enemies to counter the consumables.

And I'm saying that there are too many positive effects at the same time, not that there are too many different kinds of effects (even if that might be true too, but I haven't looked close enough at all of them to have an opinion on which that could be unnecessary). I'm really trying to work towards the same goal as you, a simpler game that relies on roleplay more than rules. The positive effect limit will reduce many of the unnecessary complicated enemies, items, effect etc. that makes the game so confusing at the moment.

I don't think its as large of an issue as you are making it. Really, I don't think this is a real issue that needs to be dealt with, especially if this is not about the rogue debate.

Why can't issues be discussed if they are not about the rogue debate? I think it is a real problem that the battles keep getting more and more complicated because that destroys the simplicity of the game.

[JimBee]

So you'd be willing to pull a Jeb and immunize out your permanent haste, right? After all, the goal is to limit the easy access to positive effects

No, it's a positive-effect giving artifact, which are pretty rare. It's also a balanced item since it also gives me Cursed. The problem is the ease of access to so many effects. Any buffing consumable you could want is cheap and available, which throws things off a lot.

In response to Endgame's idea, I agree with those who said raising the price would only favor Rogues more. I honestly think just removing them from Portia's altogether would be the best action.

[Kintobor]

No, it's a positive-effect giving artifact, which are pretty rare. It's also a balanced item since it also gives me Cursed. The problem is the ease of access to so many effects. Any buffing consumable you could want is cheap and available, which throws things off a lot.

In response to Endgame's idea, I agree with those who said raising the price would only favor Rogues more. I honestly think just removing them from Portia's altogether would be the best action.

I disagree with the notion, but if this is the route we're taking, I'd say remove some of them, but keep mead, smelling salts, and nostrum, so that we don't starve the market.

[Brickdoctor]

I disagree with the notion, but if this is the route we're taking, I'd say remove some of them, but keep mead, smelling salts, and nostrum, so that we don't starve the market.

Those are the main problem. They're the ones Rogues can stock up on. The other ones are expensive enough and specialized enough that they're usually kept in smaller numbers for select situations.

[Palathadric]

It's really not about the rogue debate. Almost everyone uses consumables in the battles and it makes it harder and harder for the QMs to balance. The problem is not rogues buying consumables, the problem is too many positive effects in the battles which forces the QMs to counter with more negative effects, passive specials, immunity to everything and a bunch of other things that makes the game too complicated and vulnerable to loopholes like the wait-out-counterstrike-tactic for example.

I'm willing to compromise though. Maybe just 1 positive effect is too harsh, so how about 2? Still a lot better than allowing 3 or more in my opinion.

While I think you're on the right track, I think if you limit the amount of positive effects a hero can use, we will never see the use of some of the less "useful" ones. It's good, but with two effects slots heroes will still be able to use nostrums and smelling salts or nostrums and mead, making them more or less, just as powerful.

I think JimB's closer to the right thing. However, what I would do, perhaps, is just limit Nostrums for now. Nostrums are the main, battle changers, and are the items that make it very difficult for the enemy to damage the hero. Meads and Smelling Salts are alright, even in combination, but Nostrums are the main problem as I see it.

I disagree with the notion, but if this is the route we're taking, I'd say remove some of them, but keep mead, smelling salts, and nostrum, so that we don't starve the market.

Um...I think those three are the ones we're talking about removing. They are the problems not the other ones.

Also, if we remove them from the marketplace, we may see more of them dropped, which is always fun...for some reason.

[Sandy]

I'm not willing to limit the amount of effects one player has, since that would be totally artificial and would force me to go through many class builds again to fit the new ruling. I fail to see what it would solve, besides making the battles less complicated and varied.

I am willing to consider removing the "drinks" from Portia's Shack at the Marketplace, to reduce accessibility to the positive effects. They are more fitting to be sold at a bar, anyway. But I still need time to think about all the possible consequences.

[Palathadric]

I still think Nostrums are the only more dramatically game-changing effect. They actually decrease the chances of getting hurt by the enemy. Smelling Salts are good, but without a Nostrum to back them up, you have not terrible chances of being hit by both enemies, which makes them kind of a risk as well.

[Etzel]

I'm not willing to limit the amount of effects one player has, since that would be totally artificial and would force me to go through many class builds again to fit the new ruling. I fail to see what it would solve, besides making the battles less complicated and varied.

That's a quite important thing to solve I think, but if you say it's too complicated to implement I guess I'll drop it.

After all, I can always keep the battles at a minimum in my quests so I don't have to worry when I'm the QM.

[Flipz]

I'd also say just remove the Nostrums.