Heroica RPG Rules & FAQ

[Brickdoctor]

The whole point of the increasing costs of WP upgrades is that it creates a cap. Like WBD said, there comes a point where higher WP will become nothing more than a status symbol or a misinterpreted measure of quality for practically all purposes. (Like, for example, megapixels.) If the filthy-rich want to spend more and more Gold on that, I don't see the problem. Any benefit they get from it is something they've most likely paid more than enough for.

[Pyrovisionary]

Fair enough.

[PsyKater]

The whole point of the increasing costs of WP upgrades is that it creates a cap. Like WBD said, there comes a point where higher WP will become nothing more than a status symbol or a misinterpreted measure of quality for practically all purposes. (Like, for example, megapixels.) If the filthy-rich want to spend more and more Gold on that, I don't see the problem. Any benefit they get from it is something they've most likely paid more than enough for.

Now I understand the pricing policy. Thanks for this explanation.

[CMP]

It's not exactly relevant yet, but is Rogue Thief's Shield considered a physical attack? The wording of the stealing health has me a confused. Mug was considered one, I know that much. I think it would be, but I'm unsure.

[Palathadric]

I was just thinking what could be interesting for the Veteran Job Classes is if instead of requiring 10 quests overall to obtain them, they required five quests playing as the respective base class. This would force people to go back to their roots in preparation for their...new roots?

[CMP]

I was just thinking what could be interesting for the Veteran Job Classes is if instead of requiring 10 quests overall to obtain them, they required five quests playing as the respective base class. This would force people to go back to their roots in preparation for their...new roots?

I think the 10 Quests requirement is plenty reasonable. Interestingly you must have successfully completed 10, a detail that I missed before. Maybe this'll teach some of those backstabbers out there.

[Flare]

I think the 10 Quests requirement is plenty reasonable. Interestingly you must have successfully completed 10, a detail that I missed before. Maybe this'll teach some of those backstabbers out there.

Backstabbers, losers, or unlimited quest freaks I have a total of 10 quests but only 6 are successful

[Sandy]

It's not exactly relevant yet, but is Rogue Thief's Shield considered a physical attack? The wording of the stealing health has me a confused. Mug was considered one, I know that much. I think it would be, but I'm unsure.

If an attack consumes ether, it's magical. If it doesn't, it's physical. Simple as that.

I was just thinking what could be interesting for the Veteran Job Classes is if instead of requiring 10 quests overall to obtain them, they required five quests playing as the respective base class. This would force people to go back to their roots in preparation for their...new roots?

The Veteran Job Classes are supposed to be rewards for dedication to this game, but also Fields-goers can buy the rights for them. I have no intention on changing that.

Only one player (Scuba) has so far completed 10 quests successfully, so it doesn't go for granted that all players will even reach these classes.

[CMP]

If an attack consumes ether, it's magical. If it doesn't, it's physical. Simple as that.

Alright, cool. I just wasn't sure if it was an actual attack, or something like Grim Reaper or Internal Conflict.

[Flipz]

Backstabbers, losers, or unlimited quest freaks I have a total of 10 quests but only 6 are successful

The downside of the Medal of Glory. I'm coming up on 8 Quests and I'm not even at Level 30 yet.

[Sandy]

Alright, cool. I just wasn't sure if it was an actual attack, or something like Grim Reaper or Internal Conflict.

It does damage based on weapon power and level, so yeah, it's an attack.

[Sandy]

I really don't remember how I or any other QM has been playing it, but I've now specified that throwing weapons must be retrieved from the front row. The FAQ has been updated accordingly:

Q: What does "retrievable" mean in the case of the throwing weapons?

A: The throwing weapons need to be retrieved in order to use again, which means during a battle, if you roll any result from 1 to 4, you have to spend a turn to get your throwing weapon back. You can only retrieve from the front row. You cannot do anything else on that turn. If you have thrown several throwing weapons at the enemies, though, you can retrieve them all on the same turn. They are automatically returned to you once the battle ends, though. In any case, it would be smartest to hold another weapon ready if you have a throwing weapon.

[Brickdoctor]

I've always QMed retrieving as from the Front Row. It doesn't make sense any other way.

[Sandy]

Now, I'm not trying to intentionally make Endgame cause an uproar, but I've made another restriction to the Necromancer's Undead Army.

From this point on, Necromancers cannot raise enemies whose type is demon, holy, ethereal or mechanic as an undead. This goes for enemies with two types as well If the enemy has one type that's raiseable and another that's not, it's up to the QM to decide. Other types (aquatic, ancient, beast, dark, electric, fiery, flying, humanoid, icy, plant, rock, undead and vermin) can be raised normally.

The main reasons for this are logic and storyline purposes. Demons, ethereal and mechanic enemies cannot be undead because they cannot really be killed, just destroyed or banished. For the holy enemies, they wouldn't be very "holy" if dark magics could affect them (also, angels shouldn't be able to die either).

And yes, I also don't want Namyrra & co. raising my precious archdemons into her ranks.

The rule pages have been adjusted accordingly. Don't you just love all these little tweaks I make?

[Endgame]

Hey, wait a second, you revived that unicorn back in 15!

Since when have shields abided by any sort of logic? I fail to see the reason behind consecutively nerfing a class you acknowledged as really not that OP.

And yes, I also don't want Namyrra & co. raising my precious archdemons into her ranks.

I was in a similar scenario once - I gave a boss monster a special that reduced the hero to 1 HP. I also had a witch in the party. Yeaaaaaah. My original solution was to simply dictate it as a critical hit in that case, but that caused a (completely justified) stir. I ended up rewording the special - but looking back, I should've let the party simply nuke it with the special mirror should the situation arise.

Sometimes QMs just gotta roll with the punches.

[Scubacarrot]

Must say I don't like that rulechange that much. Paladins wouldn't be able to be revived? Half mechanic enemies? A better way to play it would be to just state that every enemy that is immune to instant kill, would also be unable to be resurrected.

[CMP]

Yeah, this doesn't make much sense for half-type enemies. Ororo for example, looks like a pretty ordinary person that should be able to revived as an undead. And I have had several part-mechanic enemies that are really also just normal people with some super heavy armor. I would at least drop the bit where this effects multi-type enemies.

[Kintobor]

I was in a similar scenario once - I gave a boss monster a special that reduced the hero to 1 HP. I also had a witch in the party. Yeaaaaaah. My original solution was to simply dictate it as a critical hit in that case, but that caused a (completely justified) stir. I ended up rewording the special - but looking back, I should've let the party simply nuke it with the special mirror should the situation arise.

Hey, I know who we're talking about!

I have to agree with the rest of the sentiment being said. It seems pretty pointless. If you don't want an enemy resurrected, state it as a passive special.

[Capt.JohnPaul]

Scuba's or CMP's idea I think sounds better, IMO. Passive special, or make only really important enemies unable to be resurrected. (Ones with immune to instakill)

[Flipz]

From the same Quest Endgame mentioned, I'd like to point out a really clever solution he had for a similar in-game problem: he had characters who were only KO'd (i.e. not actually killed) raised as "shades" of those characters, allowing the benefits of the undead army without the drawbacks of having important characters killed off.

[Endgame]

The only time undead army gets a little bit wonky is when you have a multi-segmented creature.

Level 100 Undead Superboss Pinky

That being said, I'm not fully opposed to "This Enemy Cannot Be Summoned As An Undead", but I'd imagine it'd be less common than "Immune To Assassination". (I imagine there is a large gap between being able to instantly slaughter an enemy and being able to revive them as a lemming.)

[Flare]

That sounds really unfair, sheesh Sandy. I hope you'll reconsider.

[Scorpiox]

I think it makes perfect sense for a machine to be controlled by dark magic, in a world when the same thing can happen to organisms.

[CMP]

I think it makes perfect sense for a machine to be controlled by dark magic, in a world when the same thing can happen to organisms.

True, but that's not what a necromancer does.

[Scorpiox]

True, but that's not what a necromancer does.

Why not? All 'Necromancer' means is magic through use of the dead, there is no reason my one cannot apply this same power that can restart and control living things to inanimate machines.