Heroica RPG Rules & FAQ

[Waterbrick Down]

Zepher, yes but they are also have weakesses, which is where the issue is coming up. Immunities are countered by weaknesses. Cassandra is currently weak to darkness and immune to light, just like a holy enemy. Guts' weapon if straight darkness would do double damage, if straight light would do zero damage, and because it's both the effects are cancelled and the damage is neutral.

Heroes are effectively ancient-type, though, so they don't have any weaknesses to counter their immunities.

Exactly. Edited April 27, 2014 by Waterbrick Down

[Zepher]

I understand the words that everyone is saying, it's the ideas that I disagree with.

But ah well, who cares, sure, immunity just means "not-weak against" instead of immune. I can roll with that, even if I strongly disagree with it.

[Flipz]

Just to clarify, that sceptic face is because I'd like to see Artifacts that essentially turned the Hero wearing them into a different type. We sort-of saw that in one obscure Artifact from 48 (that was immediately overshadowed by the awesome hoods and the nutso Overkill Gloves ), but nothing since then.

[Waterbrick Down]

I understand the words that everyone is saying, it's the ideas that I disagree with.

But ah well, who cares, sure, immunity just means "not-weak against" instead of immune. I can roll with that, even if I strongly disagree with it.

I understand the sentiment, I grew up with the Pokemon games and they basically use the same elemental multiplier mechanics that we do, so I guess I'm used to thinking in those terms.

[Flipz]

Just to clarify, that sceptic face is because I'd like to see Artifacts that essentially turned the Hero wearing them into a different type. We sort-of saw that in one obscure Artifact from 48 (that was immediately overshadowed by the awesome hoods and the nutso Overkill Gloves ), but nothing since then.

Or consumables. Consumables would be even better.

[CMP]

The wording should be changed, then, if immune doesn't actually mean immune.

[Endgame]

Or consumables. Consumables would be even better.

Hmm, that'd actually be really interesting. Perhaps different wines, or sake?

[Zepher]

I also grew up on Pokemon. Don't pokemon have immunities too - attacks of certain elements simply don't work on certain pokemon, and vice-versa? I'm certain. I'm actually replaying Silver right now and I KNOW that's a thing. There's a spectrum - strong against, neutral against, weak against, immune to. They use the word immune to mean immune.

But, like I said, its just not the way I understood it in the past because of the wording (I know English isn't Sandy's first language, so maybe that's the confusion!) - I disagree with the ruling, but if that's the way it works, that's the way it works!

Edited April 27, 2014 by Zepher

[Sandy]

The wording should be changed, then, if immune doesn't actually mean immune.

Immune does mean immune, since a holy-type enemy does not take any damage from light-elemental attacks, but if the attack is both light- and dark-elemental, then the enemy takes normal damage. What else could it be called?

Guys, this is nothing new. We've played this game this way from the beginning. Almost three years...

There's a spectrum - strong against, neutral against, weak against, immune to.

This game's elemental system is based on that, but for simplicity's sake there's no "strong against" category. An enemy could also "absorb" an element (like in many JRPGs), but I decided not to include it inherently to this game either, again to keep it simple.

[Zepher]

There is actually a strong against category (x2 multipliers).

And I can't speak for everyone, but the news that "immune to" does not mean "immune to" is indeed news to me, and I have run quite a few battles incorrectly in the past because of it.

Edited April 27, 2014 by Zepher

[CMP]

Immune does mean immune, since a holy-type enemy does not take any damage from light-elemental attacks, but if the attack is both light- and dark-elemental, then the enemy takes normal damage. What else could it be called?

If it can be nullified, then it's not really an immunity. It works that way for heroes and I didn't think it'd work any different for enemies. How could I word it to get it to work in the manner I'm thinking of? *Really Immune to Light Elemental Damage*? Some of the multipliers heroes have are just gamebreaking in certain battles and generally just throwing Ethereal or Ancient on an enemy doesn't make any sense.

Edited April 27, 2014 by CallMePie

[Sandy]

There is actually a strong against category (x2 multipliers).

No, that's weak against. An enemy that would be strong against an element would only take half damage from an element...

If it can be nullified, then it's not really an immunity. It works that way for heroes and I didn't think it'd work any different for enemies.

Again, heroes do not have elemental weaknesses, enemies do. Weapons with multiple elements allows heroes to surpass enemies' elemental immunities, that's just how this game rolls.

Unless you want to suggest a complete overhaul of the elemental system, then you just have to live with this phenomenon.

[Zepher]

This wouldn't be an overhaul at all. It would simply mean that when an enemy is listed as "immune to" it would be treated as "immune to". Again, it's been done in the past, because that's the way a lot of the QMs read it. Everything else elemental would function exactly the same.

The way that you're describing it, if someone was immune to hastened and then was hastened, they'd get one turn, when really they shouldn't have the ability to be hastened at all.

Edited April 27, 2014 by Zepher

[CMP]

This wouldn't be an overhaul at all. It would simply mean that when an enemy is listed as "immune to" it would be treated as "immune to". Again, it's been done in the past, because that's the way a lot of the QMs read it. Everything else elemental would function exactly the same.

Yeah, that's basically what I'm asking here. *Immune to Light* shouldn't mean *Half Damage from Light*.

[Scubacarrot]

But it IS immune to Light. Just not to a Light/Darkness attack.

[JimBee]

I agree with CallMePie and Zepher. Immune means immune, and should mean "not affected by the element," not "0x damage, with the possibility of that being nullified by a weakness to a weapon's element".

If this isn't the ruling, then fine, but if this is nothing new it should have been clarified long ago. Many QMs have run their battles in the way described above, and it'd be nice to have some consistency.

[Waterbrick Down]

Yeah, that's basically what I'm asking here. *Immune to Light* shouldn't mean *Half Damage from Light*.

Except when it is attacked by straight light, it really is immune.

[CMP]

Except when it is attacked by straight light, it really is immune.

Unless the enemy is a Demon. Then the immunity is, well, not immune. It shouldn't be dependent on an enemy's type. Immune should straight up mean immune.

[Waterbrick Down]

Making immune really mean immune, would mean that a single enemy type immunity would actually not take any damage from a weapon imbued with 6 different gems, for example if it had the right gem imbued in it. probably would mean people would diversify their weapon selection, which may not necessarily be a bad thing. I've been running things like Sandy has said, but I agree that we should all try and find a system that we can be consistent with.

[Scorpiox]

Suggestion:

• A new effect, 'Resistant to Light' is created, that acts as the immunity does now and provides resistance to light attacks unless another multiplier exists that balances it out to normal damage.
  
• 'Immune to Light' becomes a separate effect and is changed to straight-up grant immunity to any attacks involving light.
  

This would solve all of the issues, would it not? In the Baltarok instance, the QMs would decide which of these effects Cassandra should have and we can move on.

[Zepher]

But we already have "resistant to light" - if I made Cassandra a "Light Humanoid" she'd have that.

[CMP]

• A new effect, 'Resistant to Light' is created, that acts as the immunity does now and provides resistance to light attacks unless another multiplier exists that balances it out to normal damage.
  
• 'Immune to Light' becomes a separate effect and is changed to straight-up grant immunity to any attacks involving light.
  

Sounds reasonable to me.

[Pyrovisionary]

Oh, let's stop over complicating the system.

[CMP]

But we already have "resistant to light" - if I made Cassandra a "Light Humanoid" she'd have that.

Yeah, but in some cases just throwing extra enemy types on doesn't make any sense. And it makes a mess when you're calculating for a weapon with lots of gems imbued.

[JimBee]

Making immune really mean immune, would mean that a single enemy type immunity would actually not take any damage from a weapon imbued with 6 different gems, for example if it had the right gem imbued in it.

Exactly. Pie made the Baron in 98 immune to fire just so I couldn't attack him with my most powerful weapon.