Heroica RPG Rules & FAQ

[Pandora]

Also remember that the undead and summons cannot ABSORB the Free Hits that remain left over, which is another level of strategy.

But that's only true now, as of Sandy's rule change.

Has there been a rip in the fabric of time?

[CMP]

But that's only true now, as of Sandy's rule change.

Has there been a rip in the fabric of time?

No, just the far more disastrous occurrence of misinterpreted Heroica rules. Undead and elemental summons have never taken free hits.

[Pandora]

No, just the far more disastrous occurrence of misinterpreted Heroica rules. Undead and elemental summons have never taken free hits.

Then the rule change was... already in effect then?

There really has been a rip in the fabric of time.

[CMP]

Then the rule change was... already in effect then?

There really has been a rip in the fabric of time.

The rule change is that attacking undead/summons can't prevent enemy Free Hits, they've never taken Free Hits themselves.

[Pandora]

The rule change is that attacking undead/summons can't prevent enemy Free Hits, they've never taken Free Hits themselves.

Sorry. Thank you for your patient explanation.

[Endgame]

This was the first time I've heard of the Necromancer being OP... Especially since their enture offensive might can be crushed by a single stun.

Sandy, out of curiosity, do you think the Necromancer is in itself too strong compared to other classes (power balance issue), or were you simply trying to make the game more difficult?

Edited November 9, 2013 by Endgame

[Sandy]

Sandy, out of curiosity, do you think the Necromancer is in itself too strong compared to other classes (power balance issue), or were you simply trying to make the game more difficult?

No, I don't think Necromancer is too OP, since it relies very much on luck (e.g. rolling a Shield when all enemies are still standing does nothing, the entire undead army vanishes if the Necromancer is disabled, etc.). I'm just looking for ways for the enemies to be able to hurt a high-levelled party.

This is not a game-changing rule change by any means, just something to add a little more spice to the battles.

[Endgame]

What's stopping a QM from just adding more enemies, however? I'd rather see battles adjusted until a class intentionally nerfed, although being acknowledge as not-OP before the rule change. I think the question only arose twice (On the rat battle with Althior going a ludicrously high Critical (unrelated to current issue) and now.

I don't think a class should be nerfed in such a signifigant way when changing the battles is a simpler and more fair solution.

[Sandy]

What's stopping a QM from just adding more enemies, however? I'd rather see battles adjusted until a class intentionally nerfed.

No matter how many enemies a QM adds, there would come a point in the battle when the party could hide behind the undead/summon to negate Free Hits and leisurely watch the enemy get defeated with zero chance of getting hurt themselves. Now that cannot happen anymore.

This is not a nerf, it's fixing a flaw in the game mechanics.

[Endgame]

I just feel as if Necromancers have lost their niche, that's all. Crowd control always seemed like their best asset - especially due to the high ether cost. It seems like a pretty heavy hit to the class.

Also, the ether cost is fairly prohibitive just to cower behind your army.

Maybe I'm just looking into this too much due to wanting to become necromancer.

Edited November 10, 2013 by Endgame

[Flipz]

No matter how many enemies a QM adds, there would come a point in the battle when the party could hide behind the undead/summon to negate Free Hits and leisurely watch the enemy get defeated with zero chance of getting hurt themselves. Now that cannot happen anymore.

This is not a nerf, it's fixing a flaw in the game mechanics.

I see where you're coming from (especially with Necromancers), but at the same time this REALLY hurts the Evokers, who could only do this with one enemy anyway and whose SHIELD becomes somewhat counterproductive in a number of cases. Think about it: coming from Ranger, Evokers only gain the ability to Elemental-ize their attacks (which is good, but trivial compared to, say, Assassination or Nurturing or Favoring enemy types), whereas coming from Mage, Evokers gain...Animal Talk? Yes, they could use a bow to save Ether, but unless they happen across a REALLY good bow right before the switch, it's unlikely they'll have prepared that far ahead. Their SHIELD skill (which, let's face it, is pretty much their only unique aspect) is kind of lackluster--their primary advantage WAS the ability to have crowd control, which is hugely important for one of the most squishy Advanced Classes in existence, especially given how little SP is available to them.

TL;DR the decision makes sense for the sake of Necromancers, but Evokers need a corresponding buff to make them viable again.

I just feel as if Necromancers have lost their niche, that's all. Crowd control always seeme dlike their best asset - especially due to the high ether cost. It seems like a pretty heavy hit to the class.

Also, the ether cost is fairly prohibitive just to cower behidn your army.

Maybe I'm just looking into this too much due to wanting to become necromancer.

Ah, I totally disagree with you there. Necromancers are, plain and simple, powerhouses. Imagine a Grass- and Normal-type Slaking with Sunny Day, Hyper Beam, Recover, and Earthquake, and the Ability Parenthood, and you have a rough idea of their role: takes forever to set up, but then unstoppably sweeps the opposing team once they are--but a well-prepared enemy can Super Effective them into the ground with a specifically prepared moveset. (I may have been playing Pokémon recently. :P ) They can revive through Ether (which is indeed cheaper than Phoenix Essences, by quite a bit), they can cast spells with a MULTIPLIER based on the number of undead they command, and they can deal dedicated damage. Crowd control is a bonus for them, not the point of the class--if you become a Necromancer, you do it because you want to kill stuff so you can control it.

[Pyrovisionary]

Ah, I totally disagree with you there. Necromancers are, plain and simple, powerhouses. Imagine a Grass- and Normal-type Slaking with Sunny Day, Hyper Beam, Recover, and Earthquake, and the Ability Parenthood, and you have a rough idea of their role: takes forever to set up, but then unstoppably sweeps the opposing team once they are--but a well-prepared enemy can Super Effective them into the ground with a specifically prepared moveset. (I may have been playing Pokémon recently. :P )

What. Also, Orbital lasers can destroy any Pokemon but not Guts.

[Sandy]

TL;DR the decision makes sense for the sake of Necromancers, but Evokers need a corresponding buff to make them viable again.

You forgot the whole point of the Evoker class: when their spirit is out, they get an extra elemental strike on the enemies. And they also have an AoE-spell in Summon Burst. The class is in no need for a boost.

[Scubacarrot]

Ah, I totally disagree with you there. Necromancers are, plain and simple, powerhouses. Imagine a Grass- and Normal-type Slaking with Sunny Day, Hyper Beam, Recover, and Earthquake, and the Ability Parenthood, and you have a rough idea of their role: takes forever to set up, but then unstoppably sweeps the opposing team once they are--but a well-prepared enemy can Super Effective them into the ground with a specifically prepared moveset. (I may have been playing Pokémon recently. :P ) They can revive through Ether (which is indeed cheaper than Phoenix Essences, by quite a bit), they can cast spells with a MULTIPLIER based on the number of undead they command, and they can deal dedicated damage. Crowd control is a bonus for them, not the point of the class--if you become a Necromancer, you do it because you want to kill stuff so you can control it.

I don't want to say nothing, but I'm pretty sure my Gengar can beat your example's megablocks. Yes, I have been getting proficient with the pokemans as well.

[Scorpiox]

I don't want to say nothing, but I'm pretty sure my Gengar can beat your example's megablocks. Yes, I have been getting proficient with the pokemans as well.

Gengar is certainly very powerful - that built-in immunity to ground-type moves and insanely-high Special Attack pack quite a punch.

[Pyrovisionary]

Just had a thought. What if we capped how much a weapon could be upgraded, or Cap Wp at a value altogethor.

Just a thought, I don't really think it's a good idea but..

[Flare]

Just had a thought. What if we capped how much a weapon could be upgraded, or Cap Wp at a value altogethor.

Just a thought, I don't really think it's a good idea but..

Why do you suggest it if you don't like it?

[Pyrovisionary]

Why do you suggest it if you don't like it?

I think the former part is good but the latter is a bit...

[Scorpiox]

Why do you suggest it if you don't like it?

Is there anything written stating that one must like a proposition to put it forward?

[Pyrovisionary]

It just seems ridiculous that one can sharpen a weapon to ridiculous properties beyond its original sharpness. i.e Wp:5-Wp:28.

Edited November 11, 2013 by Pyrovisionary

[Waterbrick Down]

It just seems ridiculous that one can sharpen a weapon to ridiculous properties beyond its original sharpness. i.e Wp:5-Wp:28.

Maybe a wizard did it.

Edit for relevance: As an alternative to a straight cap, how about one based on leveling? I.e. Lv. 1-10 heroes can only use weapons lower than WP 10, etc.

Edited November 11, 2013 by Waterbrick Down

[Sandy]

Please refrain from all discussion not related to rules in this topic!

This includes funny quips and Pokémon match-ups, as well. That kind of posts were the very reason this topic was separated from the discussion topic in the first place - and it wasn't just because of me growing tired of wading through filler to find actual meaningful posts, it was a whole bunch of other players as well.

[Pyrovisionary]

My idea is that we limit a weapon to being upgraded 10 times over its original Wp. It would be good I think.

[Waterbrick Down]

My idea is that we limit a weapon to being upgraded 10 times over its original Wp. It would be good I think.

The gold one spends on upgrading a weapon would eventually become useless however.

[Scorpiox]

My idea is that we limit a weapon to being upgraded 10 times over its original Wp. It would be good I think.

I disagree with any kind of cap whatsoever. If this is implemented, those lovely quirky low-WP but carrying an interesting effect weapons would never be used.