Heroica RPG Rules & FAQ

[Flare]

What about the Humanoid ruling?

Ah oops. I think I confused with thr humanoid ruling and the common sense one. Let me do a recount.

[Scorpiox]

I'm just going to sit back and watch how this turns out. The one point I will make, however is that certain people are not telling the truth about rogue generousness. Someone, not naming names, claimed that rogues need their wealth in order to buy consumables for the party. I have never once been offered a buffing consumable by a rogue class, especially not by the one making the claim, and and that says everything you need to know.

[Flipz]

I'm just going to sit back and watch how this turns out. The one point I will make, however is that certain people are not telling the truth about rogue generousness. Someone, not naming names, claimed that rogues need their wealth in order to buy consumables for the party. I have never once been offered a buffing consumable by a rogue class, especially not by the one making the claim, and and that says everything you need to know.

Let's consider what my pocketbook and consumable count have looked like before both Quests we've been together on, and then on later Quests. Now compare my actions then to my actions toward my fellow party members when I HAVE had enough to know that I won't be facing a damn Lucky boss that I can't jinx without a Nostrum of my own to even the odds. (Especially considering how unlikely it was that I'd be revived--recall that about half of that group actively argued against reviving me in the final battle--I honestly didn't expect the amount of support I actually recieved. At ANY point during the Quest.) [Note to QMs: it is not possible to overestimate the psychological effect even the threat of a Lucky enemy has on me, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.]

If I'm not dedicating 100% of my effort and money on buffing the party, that does not negate the generosity of the time and money that I do spend doing so, nor does it negate the efforts of other Rogue who do the same thing (Hybros, Mizuki, Sorrow). No matter what decision is made in the end, we shouldn't be punished for having some sense of self-preservation--especially when those concerns are well-warranted.

Edited July 7, 2013 by Flipz

[CMP]

Maybe Sandy could just put a poll for it for a few days in this topic to gauge everyone's opinion?

[Scorpiox]

Let's consider what my pocketbook and consumable count have looked like before both Quests we've been together on, and then on later Quests. Now compare my actions then to my actions toward my fellow party members when I HAVE had enough to know that I won't be facing a damn Lucky boss that I can't jinx without a Nostrum of my own to even the odds. (Especially considering how unlikely it was that I'd be revived--recall that about half of that group actively argued against reviving me in the final battle--I honestly didn't expect the amount of support I actually recieved. At ANY point during the Quest.) [Note to QMs: it is not possible to overestimate the psychological effect even the threat of a Lucky enemy has on me, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.]

If I'm not dedicating 100% of my effort and money on buffing the party, that does not negate the generosity of the time and money that I do spend doing so, nor does it negate the efforts of other Rogue who do the same thing (Hybros, Mizuki, Sorrow). No matter what decision is made in the end, we shouldn't be punished for having some sense of self-preservation--especially when those concerns are well-warranted.

I have no problem with rogue classes thinking for themselves, that's inevitable as with everyone. I also have nothing personal against those who choose not to share their items, me being one of them (although it is something I think we ought to see more of); but I will have to make clear that I find the response 'this nerf would make our generosity impossible' rather lame. Clerics offer their healing for free, do they not, despite the cost of ether? In that case, why would the loss of some rogue income prevent the giving out of items to improve a team?

I know you're in support of a change, Flipz - my comments are not directed specifically at you.

On another point:

I have read here that one of the reasons that rogues need so much money is that they must purchase enough stimulants for their next quest. If one finds oneself in a situation where one is having to pay upwards of 400 gold every quest for consumables, and this becomes an issue - perhaps the nostrum-buffing strategy is not as infallible as perceived.

[Pandora]

And passing/using consumables on other players isn't just a Rogue thing. I've done it in the past, as I'm sure others have as well that aren't part-Rogue.

Indeed, there have been plenty of times when a non-Rogue player has been the one best placed to use a Remedy or a Phoenix Essence, and has used it. I (and other non-Rogues) currently carry some consumables that I won't be able to use on myself, but they're there for when they're needed, to help the party. The argued altruism isn't restricted to Rogues either.

Of course I can always hop back for some moneymaking, but then, where will I go? Gathering a Fields team to go on a money/exp run? Not likely, anymore. Even if I planned with my group to split earnings equally, it wouldn't matter if there's no gold to be had.

That is a good point--what OF the Fields? What purpose does it serve now? What purpose is it intended to serve? And--most importantly--will anyone bother to use them if they're no longer the source of good consumables and gold they used to be?

I'm not aware that the Fields were created exclusively for the aim of gold farming for Rogues. Why is it that non-Rogues go to the fields? They aren't there to farm gold (obviously) but there's clearly an attraction for them. I was under the impression (as Brickdoctor said) that the Fields exist for those who wish to focus more on battles over roleplay, and for them to gain experience.

The idea that a nerf will render the Fields unusable for Rogues seems very silly to me.

If a change is implemented for rogues, the Fields should not be an exception to it.

Absolutely.

The income that Rogues make is not entirely spent on purchasing consumables for their future party. They are purchased after weapon upgrades and immunity upgrades and artefact purchases. Let me state plainly that I am not against min-maxing, I'm trying to do that as much as I can for my own character (and I believe we all are) and of course Rogues should be rewarded for the class they've chosen, as we all should.

To imply that a Rogue's income is almost entirely devoted to buffing the rest of the team is plainly wrong, in my opinion, and I repeat my earlier point that the very large rewards that Rogues are gaining for their choice of class are verging on negating many of the other rewards for the other classes.

[swils]

Not to say that the Fields are explicitly for gaining gold, but why can't that be a main attraction for rogues? In a properly planned party, everyone can leave with a bundle of levels AND gold. And since the Fields only accepts full-party appilcations, I see no reason why such a strategy should be discouraged.

E:

And that's not to speak towards regular quests. With some exceptions, most quest parties are at the discretion of the QM (I have yet to see any hero get bullied off of a sign-up list in the Hall in order to influence a quest party). Again, not all rogues will share their gold/consumables with their parties. But put the responsibility on their shoulders! They almost always have the gold available to enter a quest with a few weapon upgrades AND enough consumables for the party to get out of any sticky situation. They, therefore, should have such consumables. If they don't, knock THEM, not the class. The 'bad weeds' will find themselves lacking friends, given time, and will either get with the program or find themselves out of a job.

Scorpiox, I'm not sure if I'm the one who you're talking about or not. I hope I'm not. As long as I've had a foreseeable surplus (which, admittedly, is still significantly larger than that of any of my partymates'), I've shared. If it is me, please, use names.

Edited July 7, 2013 by swils

[Scorpiox]

Scorpiox, I'm not sure if I'm the one who you're talking about or not. I hope I'm not. As long as I've had a foreseeable surplus (which, admittedly, is still significantly larger than that of any of my partymates'), I've shared. If it is me, please, use names.

No, I was not referring to you. I've also re-read that earlier post and would like to apologise if I have offended anyone with the way I wrote it.

The point still stands, however. Claiming that offering consumables for party members is such a priority that the nerf must be avoided is incorrect.

[Chromeknight]

Not to say that the Fields are explicitly for gaining gold, but why can't that be a main attraction for rogues?

Why do rogues need an attraction above what every other class goes to the fields for?

{rogues} They almost always have the gold available to enter a quest with a few weapon upgrades AND enough consumables for the party to get out of any sticky situation.

This is precisely Pandora's point. A cashed up rogue makes other player's classes redundant.

[Sandy]

Not to say that the Fields are explicitly for gaining gold, but why can't that be a main attraction for rogues? In a properly planned party, everyone can leave with a bundle of levels AND gold. And since the Fields only accepts full-party appilcations, I see no reason why such a strategy should be discouraged.

Fields of Glory are open to all heroes, no matter if they sign-up individually or as a group. There will be no change or special rules to the Fields no matter what the outcome of this discussion is.

I'm going to let the discussion go on for a while more, but I have to say i'm beginning to lean towards Endgame's compromise. I have a good feeling that the change would make many things better for this game.

[TheBoyWonder]

I actually agree to an extent that we need a nerf, all gold gaining classes, the overkill gloves, but not Paragon.

[posades]

So with endgame's proposed rule, any enemy that drops gold is fair game? Isn't that basically back to QM discretion, since any enemy could technically drop gold? I could see Rogues avoiding quests from some QM's who dislike the class in general and will have no gold dropping enemies.

However, the flip side is it might mean more gold dropping enemies in battle, which would help out non-gold earners (assuming the gold is evenly distributed).

[Capt.JohnPaul]

Flipz, if you want a sense of self-preservation, no one is stopping you. Just don't give out consumables as much. And let me tell you all, the Fields' purpose is not to farm gold, but you can do it there. I've seen private plans of how to get a ton of gold using an ingenious strategy. Once this plan is used, the people who get all this gold are clever, but the game will be beyond broke.

Also, too much gold, and this is what will happen when a rogue comes on my quest:

Rogue steals tons of gold. The value will go down, because rogues get it so easily. Next time the party stops at a market or store in my quest, I will raise the prices. The rest of the party can't buy anything, as they make no money. Rogues get all the consumables and potions. Rogues become the next healer. Or they get more WP, they become the next barbarian. You get my point. This simple economic fact makes all other classes useless.

I voted for Endgame's Great Compromise of 1787, too, if it wasn't counted. (And assuming the vote matters.)

Edited July 7, 2013 by Capt.JohnPaul

[Pyrovisionary]

Flipz, if you want a sense of self-preservation, no one is stopping you. Just don't give out consumables as much. And let me tell you all, the Fields' purpose is not to farm gold, but you can do it there. I've seen private plans of how to get a ton of gold using an ingenious strategy. Once this plan is used, the people who get all this gold are clever, but the game will be beyond broke.

Also, too much gold, and this is what will happen when a rogue comes on my quest:

Rogue steals tons of gold. The value will go down, because rogues get it so easily. Next time the party stops at a market or store in my quest, I will raise the prices. The rest of the party can't buy anything, as they make no money. Rogues get all the consumables and potions. Rogues become the next healer. Or they get more WP, they become the next barbarian. You get my point. This simple economic fact makes all other classes useless.

This.

[Flare]

Alright. After I did a recount of the votes (or what seemed really really similar to a vote), this is the conclusions:

42% - With 5 votes: the Endgame Compromise (Capt John Paul, Rumble Strike, Flipz, Brickdoctor, Flare)

25% - With 3 votes: Racism - Humanoids Only (posades, JimButcher, LordoftheNoobs)

25% - With 3 votes: Stop Messing With My Gold, Dude (Dannylonglegs, swils, Zakura)

8% - With 1 vote: "Common Sense (is not so common)" (Palathadric)

Overall:

We have 75% in favor of change, and 25% against.

[Capt.JohnPaul]

Thanks, vote tallier Flare. I think that is pretty convincing, to those who aren't yet. So those who haven't voted, get on the bandwagon!

Edited July 7, 2013 by Capt.JohnPaul

[Pyrovisionary]

Well the thing is, it's a one way economy based entirely on consumables and armour.

[Flare]

Thanks, vote tallier Flare. I think that is pretty convincing, to those who aren't yet. So those who haven't voted, get on the bandwagon!

Ooh, I've got the official position now?? Awesome!!

Anyways, Sandy, I think that you can see what thr majority wants.

[Capt.JohnPaul]

Yes, but people are making money out of thin air, and others aren't. If I want a certain type of armor to be hard to buy, I have to raise the price. Or if it's completely ludicrous to buy 10 nostrums, I'll raise the price of consumables, just so it's costlier to use that cheap get-doped-up-rogue strategy.

Also for artifacts, some of Fabian's stuff is limited in supply. So now, there is demand, and low supply. These 1 of a kind items wouldn't be special if any old rogue could just buy one, so we would have to raise the price.

[KotZ]

I have a suggestion that could help. We could have a small banking system. Say everyone can only carry a limited amount of gold (anywhere from 1,000 to 2,000, I'll let you guys decide) on their person at any one time. The rest would be stored in a bank in Heroica Hall, which could only be accessed in the Hall. Some quests could allow you to access the bank if you desire (at QMs discretion). Now, if a a monster is killed and drops gold, you can pick it up, but you can't carry more than the set amount of coin. The same thing can be done with consumables, armor, etc, at a later point. IF you do reach the limit, to bad, you can't carry anymore. If you're under your limit, congrats, you gain gold. Then in the hall you can drop it off in the bank, and yo can have as much in the bank as you want.

[Scorpiox]

I have a suggestion that could help. We could have a small banking system. Say everyone can only carry a limited amount of gold (anywhere from 1,000 to 2,000, I'll let you guys decide) on their person at any one time. The rest would be stored in a bank in Heroica Hall, which could only be accessed in the Hall. Some quests could allow you to access the bank if you desire (at QMs discretion). Now, if a a monster is killed and drops gold, you can pick it up, but you can't carry more than the set amount of coin. The same thing can be done with consumables, armor, etc, at a later point. IF you do reach the limit, to bad, you can't carry anymore. If you're under your limit, congrats, you gain gold. Then in the hall you can drop it off in the bank, and yo can have as much in the bank as you want.

Although this is an interesting idea, I feel that it would overcomplicate the beautifully simple system that this game operates.

[UsernameMDM]

Negative to the banking system.

[Sandy]

I have a suggestion that could help. We could have a small banking system.

You forget that somebody needs to personally handle all those transactions, since we're not inside a videogame. I didn't create this game to become a full-time bank clerk.

But as a suggestion it's not too shabby, since some videogame RPGs use that system. Too bad we have the realities of the human physics and time constraints to take into account.

[Pyrovisionary]

Banking system . But that's basically a cap on how much a rogue can carry. It happens to everyone though...

[JimBee]

Besides, doesn't everyone gripe about the OP-ness of Darkness-elemental attacks anyway? Do we really want to implement a rule that makes it even MORE likely for all the enemies to be Humanoid and, thus, weak to Darkness?

No, I gripe about the elemental strengths and weaknesses that don't make sense, such as fire not being weak to water. But that aside, no, I don't think the darkness element has encouraged any lack of humanoid enemies, and neither should adding this rule about only Humanoids dropping gold.

So with endgame's proposed rule, any enemy that drops gold is fair game? Isn't that basically back to QM discretion, since any enemy could technically drop gold? I could see Rogues avoiding quests from some QM's who dislike the class in general and will have no gold dropping enemies.

Exactly. I think enemies that drop gold are rarer than humanoids in general, and using Endgame's suggestion puts more power into the QM's hands for when Rogues can get gold. It's easy/lazy to slap on "drops gold" to any enemy; having the Humanoid-only rule would encourage more of what makes sense, and would affect other gaming decisions on the QM's part (such as deciding which enemy types to include).

Basically, the Humanoid-only rule would be put into place and everyone can go about their business without worrying about enemy types. Because as it is, like Scuba said, about 60% of enemies are humanoid. And there are few in the Fields of Glory, which so happens to be and should not be exempt from the rule.

I have a suggestion that could help. We could have a small banking system.

I do remember Sandy mentioning something like that a long time ago...

You forget that somebody needs to personally handle all those transactions, since we're not inside a videogame. I didn't create this game to become a full-time bank clerk.

But as a suggestion it's not too shabby, since some videogame RPGs use that system. Too bad we have the realities of the human physics and time constraints to take into account.

We could rely on the honor system like we have this whole time. We don't need a full time bank clerk, we just need to depend on everyone playing fair, and everyone keeping an eye on everyone else. It's no different than how we've run the game so far with gold income, purchases, etc.

I actually think a banking system is a really good idea for capping how much one person (Rogues especially) can earn.