Heroica RPG Rules & FAQ

[Sandy]

I would say the health is drained from the enemy in addition to the enemy draining health from the captive. Special Mirror is designed to always at least provide some benefit to the witch.

I can't say I exactly designed it with that in mind, but I went with your suggestion.

[Waterbrick Down]

I can't say I exactly designed it with that in mind, but I went with your suggestion.

Benefit might be too strong of a word, trade-off seems better. It's your class to rule as you wish. I've thought of it as cleric type classes have a chance to ignore a special damage's effects, while witches have to bite the bullet take the scenario but at least get to make sure their enemy suffers with them.

[CMP]

How does it work if Soryx were to attack the Shade since he is favouring Dark creatures.

Posting it here because I'm unsure. I don't know if Favoring multipliers tie into elemental strengths and weaknesses. Basically, Soryx's weapon can't affect the Shade, but if the multipliers occur at the same time (ie, he's not tripling zero damage) he could theoretically be dealing damage at a multiplier of x1 because elemental weaknesses can't be lower than x0 and since Favoring isn't elemental I don't think the other elements that COULD come into play in order to balance any non-existant strengths against his Dark Ethereal type do come into play.

[JimBee]

Posting it here because I'm unsure. I don't know if Favoring multipliers tie into elemental strengths and weaknesses. Basically, Soryx's weapon can't affect the Shade, but if the multipliers occur at the same time (ie, he's not tripling zero damage) he could theoretically be dealing damage at a multiplier of x1 because elemental weaknesses can't be lower than x0 and since Favoring isn't elemental I don't think the other elements that COULD come into play in order to balance any non-existant strengths against his Dark Ethereal type do come into play.

I didn't see this until after the 98 thread, but I think if an enemy is ethereal and you attack it with a weapon imbued with elements, no damage is dealt, period.

[CMP]

I didn't see this until after the 98 thread, but I think if an enemy is ethereal and you attack it with a weapon imbued with elements, no damage is dealt, period.

That's what I'm thinking, I'm just confirming that Favoring and elemental multipliers don't happen at the same time.

[Endgame]

If you consider Ethereal to be a type that is simply immune to all elements, and then attack it with another weapon with effective typing (Water weapon against a Fiery Ethereal), wouldn't it be normal damage? I can attack Aureole (Holy/Demon) with my Dark Ice bow, after all.

[CMP]

If you consider Ethereal to be a type that is simply immune to all elements, and then attack it with another weapon with effective typing (Water weapon against a Fiery Ethereal), wouldn't it be normal damage? I can attack Aureole (Holy/Demon) with my Dark Ice bow, after all.

Yeah. But Vanquisher also has ice and lightning elemental, so the Shade is further immune as a result.

[JimBee]

That's what I'm thinking, I'm just confirming that Favoring and elemental multipliers don't happen at the same time.

Right,

If you consider Ethereal to be a type that is simply immune to all elements, and then attack it with another weapon with effective typing (Water weapon against a Fiery Ethereal), wouldn't it be normal damage? I can attack Aureole (Holy/Demon) with my Dark Ice bow, after all.

Hm, well that depends how you see the Ethereal type. I've always considered Ethereal enemies to be immune to elemental damage, and not just having a 0x multiplier against it. That means they can only be damaged by non-elemental attacks, regardless of secondary or tertiary types of the enemy.

[CMP]

Hm, well that depends how you see the Ethereal type. I've always considered Ethereal enemies to be immune to elemental damage, and not just having a 0x multiplier against it. That means they can only be damaged by non-elemental attacks, regardless of secondary or tertiary types of the enemy.

I think Sandy mentioned in the past that it just acts like any other enemy type, it just has no weaknesses and strengths across all elements.

You'd better hope I'm right, I've got some Ethereal Undead lined up for you guys, and it'll suck if you can only hurt it by healing it.

[JimBee]

I think Sandy mentioned in the past that it just acts like any other enemy type, it just has no weaknesses and strengths across all elements.

You'd better hope I'm right, I've got some Ethereal Undead lined up for you guys, and it'll suck if you can only hurt it by healing it.

Come to think of it I think you're right about that. It should be added to the FAQ. You do mean a 0x multiplier then, right? Which means Ethereal is strong against all elements.

Also, does anyone know how the Necromancer's Amplified Spell works if no undead are raised? 0x multiplier on the weapon or 1x, like a normal spell?

[CMP]

Come to think of it I think you're right about that. It should be added to the FAQ. You do mean a 0x multiplier then, right? Which means Ethereal is strong against all elements.

Also, does anyone know how the Necromancer's Amplified Spell works if no undead are raised? 0x multiplier on the weapon or 1x, like a normal spell?

Yeah. I don't think it's immune, just has a 0x multiplier like any other enemy type to elements weak against it.

Taken literally it should be 0x. 1x would imply Namyyra has one undead alive. I don't think it's that big a deal considering how hilarious that multiplier is gonna be later on.

Edited April 21, 2014 by CallMePie

[Waterbrick Down]

I've always considered it as 1 immunity cancels out 1 weakness for neutral. So if someone attacks an Etharial/Fiery with a water imbued weapon it's neutral damage, but if some attacks the same enemy with a lightning/water imbued weapon it's 0 damage because there are 2 immunities (water and lightning) and only 1 weakness (water).

[CMP]

I've always considered it as 1 immunity cancels out 1 weakness for neutral. So if someone attacks an Etharial/Fiery with a water imbued weapon it's neutral damage, but if some attacks the same enemy with a lightning/water imbued weapon it's 0 damage because there are 2 immunities (water and lightning) and only 1 weakness (water).

Yeah, I believe that is how it works.

[Sandy]

Pure ethereal types cannot be damaged by elemental attacks, but if there's a second type attached to an enemy, then it can be damaged by the element that's the second type is weak against (since the immunity and strength cancel each other out).

[joeshmoe554]

This is in reference to 98, but I figured I'd ask the question here rather than get too much more out of character responses.

The Baron's immunity to fire would make him completely immune to the Dual Staff, no? Or will his weakness to light count and balance it out?

"Well, it appears we came none to see. Caught these buggers in the act!"

It would balance out.

OOC: The immunity to fire and the weakness against light will cancel out, right?

No, he's completely immune to fire, not strong against it.

Since these two quotes directly contradict each other, I was wondering which one you want to go with.

[CMP]

Since these two quotes directly contradict each other, I was wondering which one you want to go with.

I've been running too many fifteen hero battles lately.

The second one is correct, but I'll leave in any damage dealt by the Dual Staff up to this point.

[Vash the Stampede]

I'm not expecting a rule change before the end of the big Baltarok quest but something to think about.

I stuck weaker foes with lust in, and those horses, but Guts is too damn powerful and steam rolled them all.

How many people actually think this rule needs changing? I'm fine with it as is, but I could also see the logic in changing it to "two turns need to target a Hastened enemy to prevent a Free Hit".

I think a Hastened enemy dealing a free hit no matter what is fine.

I like Hastened=unstoppable Free Hit in theory (at least as a temporary buff), but I absolutely despise it as a permanent buff on enemies, and I also despise it on things in groups. In terms of difficulty, each additional Hastened enemy is an exponential increase rather than an additive (enemy Level) or multiplicative (number of enemies) one, since for each Hastened enemy you have to be able to survive both Damage AND a Free Hit (not to mention any AoE specials).

Once the hitpoints/healthpoints controversy of the horses was worked out, I realized I actually really like that mechanism as a balancing agent. Taking hastened away from enemies is important, and hitting horses is (at this point, since they're not immune to everything and have no SP) doable.

I think the rule needs a limit. Maybe not two, but three? So that there is more meaning than just "attack this guy twice" (even if it's only "attack this guy three times") but it's still a very significant strategic hazard.

Some thoughts, perhaps attaching something very powerful like hastened on an enemy to something that can be destroyed (easy or hard, maybe horses with high health, or even more hit points), maybe to make it more temporary like Flipz suggests we put it on a countdown (as in lasts for 3 rounds or some other number), or having two + heroes attacking the same enemy to cancel it out.

Personally I'd go with three or four hero targets to cancel out a free hit from a hastened enemy, forcing several to target one enemy dedicates hero power on one enemy but still making it possible to avoid that free hit, possibly a reward if you get rid of all the other mooks and have a bunch of heroes attacking a hastened enemy the unavoidable free hit is no longer a problem but still not making it obsolete if you just have two heroes target the enemy (or a single hastened hero, that's too easy) thoughts?

Edited April 22, 2014 by Vash the Stampede

[joeshmoe554]

I've been running too many fifteen hero battles lately.

As far as excuses go, that is a very good one.

[StickFig]

Personally I'd go with three or four hero targets to cancel out a free hit from a hastened enemy, forcing several to target one enemy dedicates hero power on one enemy but still making it possible to avoid that free hit...

I can see this becoming a stacking or tiered option:

*Hastened* = 1 extra action

*Hastened +2* = 2 extra actions

*Hastened +3* = 3 extra actions

Now I'm not saying this is a good idea, I'm just taking the idea to a logical conclusion so that it's out there.

[Waterbrick Down]

I can see this becoming a stacking or tiered option:

*Hastened* = 1 extra action

*Hastened +2* = 2 extra actions

*Hastened +3* = 3 extra actions

Now I'm not saying this is a good idea, I'm just taking the idea to a logical conclusion so that it's out there.

That's actually not a bad idea. I've been wondering about how to design single enemies that can challenge a party, i.e. one's that amount to just the tank attacking the big bad and everyone else sitting back. If a system was implemented where the free hits from hastened could be cancelled out, then it would help free the design constraints of an enemy with lots of tentacles or split into half a dozen body parts, etc.

[Endgame]

That's actually not a bad idea. I've been wondering about how to design single enemies that can challenge a party, i.e. one's that amount to just the tank attacking the big bad and everyone else sitting back. If a system was implemented where the free hits from hastened could be cancelled out, then it would help free the design constraints of an enemy with lots of tentacles or split into half a dozen body parts, etc.

Single enemies can be extremely tough to balance. Either they're push overs (obsidian Dragons) or rock-hard without a real strategy to beat them (Aureole.) I've been thinking about something Nstickney has proposed for some time, but ultimately I'd prefer if it was something separate from Hastened. Perhaps just make it a passive?

[Pyrovisionary]

I generally, have a few ideas on random mechanics that no doubt have lots of holes in them that I have not forseen but here they are:

• Backpack limit! I don't know, but seeing people with no visible backpack carrying 1000's of items just feels wrong to me. An inventory limit (Perhaps with an accompanying heroica bank for the excess items, that cannot be accessed on quests? I wouldn't mind helping with that...) might be good without complicating things too much whilst at the same time adding a level of strategy and planning
  
• Non-combat classes: I do realise that Heroica is a mercenary organisation but it'd be cool to roleplay a pack merchant or something. I dunno.
  
• A crafting system: Self-explanatory. It'd be awesome. Maybe contained within the class system i.e alchemists can mix potions out of battle using ingredients. Artisan could craft weapons. etc.
  

We gotta remember that one day.... One day. I will come up with a good idea.

[Scubacarrot]

- Zepher made the heroes of Quest 39 only able to take a few items. So that's essentially a backpack limit. It worked well enough for a mechanic. If you feel as the qm that it would help your quest to implement something like that, I think you should be able to go for it.

- Alchemist and Minstrel are both classes that are less direct combat focussed than most. But there can be even more of that. A class needs to have battle rolls, and no quest as of yet is WITHOUT battles. If you're a QM, you can suggest new classes, so.

[CMP]

I don't think those are the kind of changes that would lend themselves well to Heroica's relatively simple mechanics, or that you could really implement without some major changes to everything anyway.

[Kintobor]

- Alchemist and Minstrel are both classes that are less direct combat focussed than most. But there can be even more of that. A class needs to have battle rolls, and no quest as of yet is WITHOUT battles. If you're a QM, you can suggest new classes, so.

Marketplace Mystery had no combat. I didn't think it was a very good quest though, so...

I think there's enough in terms of support classes. Minstrel's really good, and so is Alchemist, and some of the Advanced classes are very much offensive/support.