Heroica RPG Rules & FAQ

[Endgame]

What makes this solution inherently better then simply jacking up the prices for consumables or just pulling the Nostrums off the shelves altogether, though, especially if it requires the heavy rebranding/rebalancing of a well established system?

[CMP]

Heroes having a lot of consumables isn't the problem. It's that when stacked on top of one another it makes balancing battles much more difficult.

[Endgame]

Having lots of effects id directly linked to actually owning the consumable, however. Besides, Haste and Encouraged isn't too terrible - it is when you factor in Lucky things start getting dicey.

[CMP]

Having lots of effects id directly linked to actually owning the consumable, however.

Yeah, but it's not that Rogues can afford gobs of them that's the problem, it's that too many used at once unbalances battles.

[Flipz]

Who's honestly stacking effects anymore, though? Guts, Sorrow, and Hybros, and maybe Thalion and Namyrra. All Rogues. Meanwhile, Arthur tends to save all his consumables unless he REALLY knows he needs them, just like almost all other non-Rogue Heroes.

The problem is not in the effects themselves, it's that a few players have access to many of them at once, and so all the players who save up because they know Endgame and Zepher will require buff-stacked Heroes just for a chance to survive get penalized for those 5-6 Heroes' sake.

I support an increase in prices. I support removing Nostrums (which, let's be honest, it's the only buffing consumable with no drawback) from the Marketplace. I do not support limiting the number of positive effects directly.

[swils]

Jacking the prices up hurts classes who can't pull gold out of thin air (as always, this assumes that rogues don't start dividing their hauls). Limiting availability but not changing the mechanics doesn't do anything to address the issue of having to account for a literal superhero in any given battle. Plus there's plenty of heroes who already have enough stockpiled to keep the issue in play for plenty of quests to come.

Limiting the effects available at any given time promotes strategy and decision making rather than "I'm going to pop all these potions and become a god for a day". QMs won't have to worry about their boss getting taken down by a single hero that can deal double damage, twice a turn, with very little chance of taking damage. The power gap between haves and have-nots in battle would be hugely reduced because enemies won't have to have huge defenses and HP pools and damage capabilities to pose a threat to a few heroes, while completely dominating/bullying out others in the party. Buffing up would still have a noticeable effect and be a significant power increase for any hero, so the items won't feel useless, you'll just have to pick and choose which particular advantage you want to use in a given scenario.

The problem is not in the effects themselves, it's that a few players have access to many of them at once, and so all the players who save up because they know Endgame and Zepher will require buff-stacked Heroes just for a chance to survive get penalized for those 5-6 Heroes' sake.

Buffs aren't buffs if they're a requirement. Battles shouldn't be designed around a buff-stacked party. They have been, though, because that's what players are bringing to the table. Without creating impossibly hard challenges, buff-stacked heroes would be able to make a joke out of any quest now.

[Flipz]

The power gap between haves and have-nots

The entire problem in a nutshell. If it's SUCH a problem, remove Nostrums from the market, wait for the "haves" to use up their existing stock, and then re-introduce them (or just outright delete all Nostrums from the game, refunding them for Gold). Or else, stop punishing EVERYONE because of the "haves" having things.

Or, alternatively, stop taking the people who buff-stack on Quests. That'll solve the problem right quick.

[CMP]

Or, alternatively, stop taking the people who buff-stack on Quests. That'll solve the problem right quick.

In the worst possible manner.

[swils]

The entire problem in a nutshell. If it's SUCH a problem, remove Nostrums from the market, wait for the "haves" to use up their existing stock, and then re-introduce them (or just outright delete all Nostrums from the game, refunding them for Gold). Or else, stop punishing EVERYONE because of the "haves" having things.

Honestly, I don't see it as a problem. If I wanted to continue to take advantage of it, I'd ditch Arx, go back to Raider, laugh about the increased price of consumables, and continue to buy as needed (even if Nostrums weren't readily available). I could be a 'have'. I'm only proposing a solution because I foresee something changing here, and I don't want it to simply be 'jack the prices up' or 'limit availability'. Neither of those address the root issue at hand (as I perceive it) of the sheer power of stacked consumables.

Okay, maybe I lied. I guess I do see it as a problem because I think it would be healthier for the game if consumable stacking were eliminated. Battles could be balanced around the party and heroes as they stand, with some tweaks for power or twists or what-have you. Consumables could then be used as (I believe) originally intended, a buff to tip the scales in the heroes' favor, not as a "If we don't use 'em, we're all going to die."

[Jebediahs]

I support an increase in prices. I support removing Nostrums (which, let's be honest, it's the only buffing consumable with no drawback) from the Marketplace. I do not support limiting the number of positive effects directly.

False. The one drawback of heroes under the lucky effect is that if not positioned last, they run the risk of eating up a good /roll for the person after them.

[Capt.JohnPaul]

I don't like the categories idea. I think just pulling them from the market is best.

False. The one drawback of heroes under the lucky effect is that if not positioned last, they run the risk of eating up a good /roll for the person after them.

That depends on how the QM rolls the dice.

[swils]

I don't like the categories idea. I think just pulling them from the market is best.

What does that do to address the actual concern, though? QMs will still have to face the possibility that for any given encounter (especially while we wait for stockpiles to wear out which could take a while), a hero could pop all their consumables and wipe the floor with non-compensated enemies, or the QM could proactively buff the enemies and heroes who don't/can't buff up would be at a serious disadvantage. By limiting buff-stacking, QM's can design encounters where everyone can useful without buffs, not feel like they're getting carried by the hero(es) who caused the enemy to have to be so strong in the first place.

[Capt.JohnPaul]

If a hero wastes all his consumables to kill weak enemies, so be it. Limiting the availability will make heroes be wiser about buffing themselves and when.

[swils]

If a hero wastes all his consumables to kill weak enemies, so be it. Limiting the availability will make heroes be wiser about buffing themselves and when.

Ah, but a hero doesn't have to waste his consumables to make them a consideration and thus a problem for the QM. Simply having them available creates the possibility that a hero could trivialize any encounter, boss fights included. If the QM chooses to scale an enemy due to the possibility of a buff-stacked hero, then the buffed hero isn't rewarded for stacking, the other heroes are just punished for not stacking.

[Endgame]

For Encoruaged: I typically add 150-250 (depending on party size/level) HP for every single Encouraged hero across the entire enemy party.

Hastened: I let them have their fun, except for some nullifying specials.

Lucky: Same as above.

For the record, I (and I believe Scuba?) have no problem with specials that remove positive effects, and we're some of the more notorious stackers.

[CMP]

For the record, I (and I believe Scuba?) have no problem with specials that remove positive effects, and we're some of the more notorious stackers.

That's great, it doesn't mean a damn thing if you never roll any.

[swils]

*ABL=Above the Baseline

*BBL=Below the Baseline

See, but that's an example of what I'm talking about: You're balancing around buffs so that they're not buffs anymore, they're basically just the hero's stats. Buffs should make a fight easier, lowering the difficulty BBL. If the buff is then removed, difficulty goes back to baseline. The buff can be reapplied to go BBL again. If a negative effect is applied, the difficulty rises ABL, but that can be remedied to return to baseline. If, instead, an encounter is scaled to a party's maximum/buffed potential, then there is no way for them to drop the challenge BBL.

[Capt.JohnPaul]

Ah, but a hero doesn't have to waste his consumables to make them a consideration and thus a problem for the QM. Simply having them available creates the possibility that a hero could trivialize any encounter, boss fights included. If the QM chooses to scale an enemy due to the possibility of a buff-stacked hero, then the buffed hero isn't rewarded for stacking, the other heroes are just punished for not stacking.

A QM probably shouldn't buff enemies because a hero took Steroids. I rarely do. And removing them now, this instant, from the Marketplace would probably help.

[swils]

I'll refer you to Endgame's post just above about how he scales enemies based on buffs.

The more I talk about this, the more my view changes to thinking this really would be a good direction.

Removing them from the marketplace only serves to curb the supply. It's a band-aid at best and does nothing to change the problem of stacked consumables being exceedingly strong. It doesn't address the fact that there's no strategy behind choosing to buff up except the choice itself. You don't have to determine which buff is best suited for the occasion--they all are. Limiting the availability of consumables will only reduce the number of times we see those consumables used, not make for more interesting/strategic choices regarding their use. If I can attempt to make an analogy, it's like if you're playing League of Legends and you pick Karma. You've got a kit at your disposal and you've got your ultimate which, when used, powers up your next ability cast. Each boosted spell has its role to serve and when used properly can make for some powerful AND interesting plays. It's got a decent cooldown though, so you have to be smart about what you boost and when. The power of each is limited by the fact that they can't be boosted simultaneously.

Cutting the supply of buffing consumables without doing anything to address stacking would be like giving Karma's ultimate the ability to boost all three spells, but increasing the cooldown to the point that you can only use it every 10 minutes. You've got all that power and utility and even though you can't use it very often, when you do, it makes things laughably easy.

*Addendum:

...laughably easy, while removing all decision making from it. There's no longer a strategy behind which boosted spell to use, which is most appropriate for this situation (or which can make the most game-changing play).

[UsernameMDM]

Are Fragile and Frail the same thing?

[Waterbrick Down]

Are Fragile and Frail the same thing?

They should be.

[UsernameMDM]

They should be.

I would think so, but I am making sure. I have a Scroll of Frailty I thought about added to some armor, but the Heavy Armor already provide immunity to Fragile, which has the same wording and Frail.

[Waterbrick Down]

Yeh it's the same thing.

[Zepher]

Didn't we just change a rule? Let's let the game run for a week without something changing. It's not that broken.

[Flipz]

Didn't we just change a rule? Let's let the game run for a week without something changing. It's not that broken.

Exactly. Let me point out that we're getting up in arms about something that affects about six people. For the rest of us? Nothing broken here, let's move on.