Heroica RPG Rules & FAQ

[CMP]

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

Actually, I was just being consistent. Pretzel got to see the Baron's Hat's stats in a conversation during Quest 69. That's also why he has 10 Defense.

[Flipz]

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.

This sounds like a good idea. ;)

[Waterbrick Down]

So using this terminology then are enemy types "immune" or "resistant"? Also "resistant" actually means immune except in case where there are other elemental modifiers attached, as opposed to resisted elements doing only 1/2 damage to the enemies.

[Sandy]

Looking back on the actual rule page about elements, it lists the element as being "effective against" and "doesn't affect" towards enemy types, so this is just a mix-up of terms, it seems.

So the general consensus seems to be that if an enemy specifically has the *immune against [element]* -effect, then the elemental modifiers that concern the enemy's type do not matter. It complicates the way things are calculated somewhat, but I can live with that. Should I add this to the FAQ, then?

[JimBee]

So then the way this works is how CallMePie and others have thought it worked? *Immune to Fire* means the enemy is not affected by weapons with rubies in them, no matter what other gems or multipliers may be present, correct?

[CMP]

So then the way this works is how CallMePie and others have thought it worked? *Immune to Fire* means the enemy is not affected by weapons with rubies in them, no matter what other gems or multipliers may be present, correct?

I think that's what Sandy's suggesting. If so, sounds good to me.

[Scubacarrot]

Apparantly up to now it was how I thought it was, and now it's going to be how CMP figured it would work. I personally don't feel either way about this change. It's gonna reduce the amount of times enemies are going to be immune to stuff, most likely, but that's no big deal.

Edited April 28, 2014 by Scubacarrot

[Darkdragon]

I don't agree with this ruling at all. It seems to me if I hit an enemy with a Darkness+Fire sword, and the enemy is immune to Fire, there is no reason why the sword WP and the Darkness would be ignored.

[Scorpiox]

I don't agree with this ruling at all. It seems to me if I hit an enemy with a Darkness+Fire sword, and the enemy is immune to Fire, there is no reason why the sword WP and the Darkness would be ignored.

That's why I think they should be separate effects, so that QMs can use both sorts of immunity if they wish and there still be rule consistency. Both possibilities have their merits and make sense independently, so logically why not just make them different things and move on?

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.

[Waterbrick Down]

If we're declaring that logically Immunity should mean immune, why would QM's ever make a distinction between a Resistance (which essentially is an Immunity for most cases, but is sometimes mechanically easier on the heroes) and a full on Immunity?

[swils]

I feel like Immunity (as it's being argued) just shouldn't be a thing. Leave it at Weak Against & Resistant To. Undead are technically immune to physical attacks, but having any combination of gems allows a [generic weapon] to hit them all the same. At most, a special-case "Immunity" should just negate the positve/negative multipliers of an element. A Beast that is immune to fire should take 1x damage from a sword that has only a ruby imbued in it, but would still take 2x damage from a Ruby/Opal sword. An Undead that was immune to fire would take 0x damage from a ruby-imbued sword, but take 1x damage from a ruby/opal sword.

I know that the wording doesn't quite match up with the definition of "Immune", but that's why I think "Immune" simply shouldn't be, in the first place.

[Sandy]

I feel like Immunity (as it's being argued) just shouldn't be a thing. Leave it at Weak Against & Resistant To. Undead are technically immune to physical attacks, but having any combination of gems allows a [generic weapon] to hit them all the same. At most, a special-case "Immunity" should just negate the positve/negative multipliers of an element. A Beast that is immune to fire should take 1x damage from a sword that has only a ruby imbued in it, but would still take 2x damage from a Ruby/Opal sword. An Undead that was immune to fire would take 0x damage from a ruby-imbued sword, but take 1x damage from a ruby/opal sword.

I know that the wording doesn't quite match up with the definition of "Immune", but that's why I think "Immune" simply shouldn't be, in the first place.

What you suggest would be a total abandonment of the elemental system, then, with heroes being able to damage all enemies (except undead) with every weapon. So why have different types or elements to begin with? Can't every enemy just be called "monster" and if you hit it you win?

Yeah, that's right - because battles should have things like challenge and variation in them. That's why.

[swils]

I guess I didn't mean to suggest that, my mistake! The take-away there was supposed to be that slapping "Immune to" would negate any weakness/resistance to that particular element that would otherwise exist through the elemental system. Enemies would still be weak/resistant to things as normal, with an opal-imbued weapon dealing 0 damage to an icy monster, but dealing normal damage to a QM-designated ice-immune beast.

[Endgame]

Out of curiosity, does that ruling mean that a Dark elemental weapon could no longer hit a Demon/Holy enemy?

[CMP]

Out of curiosity, does that ruling mean that a Dark elemental weapon could no longer hit a Demon/Holy enemy?

That has nothing to do with it; it refers to enemies that have *Immune to [Element]* listed as one of their effects.

[UsernameMDM]

More justification for my choice NOT to imbue my weapons.

[Zepher]

I really think immunity should be an option. It's worked well in the past. No QM wants to create an impossible battle, they want to add extra strategy, and this will force some heroes to have some back-up weapons, or for weaker PCs to play a role, or a slew of other possibilities. I swear to never use this to victimize people, just to give some extra thought.

Again, this is almost a non-arguement as to if it's broken because both Pie and I have used it as it is "purposed to be" in the past (we thought it was already that way) and, hey, look, our quests are doable!

[Waterbrick Down]

Oy vey. Since there still seems to be an incredible amount of confusion on all of this and everyone's opinions regarding it and it seems like no one is completely understanding what the other person is specifically saying, I'm going to lay out a nice informative summary detailing everything and that will hopefully be free of any misunderstanding or assumptions. I'll be back.

[Flipz]

The only problem I can foresee (and this is me playing devil's advocate) is that it makes multi-elemental weapons completely not worth it. Under the new meta, multiple gems is a liability more than an asset, and people will either stop using more than one elemental weapon with exactly one element imbued (likely Light because undead) carried as a backup or else maintain a number of independent weapons each with their own element (in which case it's better to go Mage anyway).

I'm only seeing positives, the problem is wording it clearly enough that everyone can understand it.

[Zepher]

Yeah, they'll have to diversify a little. And really it wouldn't be a huge issue - I think I've hosted 11 quests now, each with about 6 battles in them, and I think I've used "immune to" in maybe 3 or 4 of those battles... so, really, in most cases, the weapons would actually still be pretty good.

[Waterbrick Down]

Alrighty, here we go.

From the main rules:

Mages can use the power of the nine elements to their advantage. Each element works well on some enemy types [i.e. "Effective Against"], while not affecting some others at all [i.e. "Doesn't Affect"]. Normal attacks aren't especially effective against any type of enemies, but undead monsters are not affected by them.

Immune to [Element] - The target does not take damage from attacks that are of the specified element.

All enemies fall into one or more categories that determine their elemental weaknesses. Some weapons are more effective against certain enemy types, as well. Ancient enemies are not weak against any element. Etherial enemies are immune to all elements. Undead enemiesare immune to non-elmental attacks, but healing hurts them.

From the FAQ:

Q: If an enemy falls into more than one type, how are conflicting or aiding elements determined? For example, an enemy is both flying and mechanic, and is attacked by a wind element (sapphire). How is damage determined then?

A: In your example, the two types cancel each other out, so a Flying Mechanic type enemy would take normal damage from wind spells. If the enemy was a Flying Vermin type, though, the wind spell would cause quadruple damage against that enemy, since both those types are weak to the element.

Now it is important in this entire discussion to keep our terms clear the main ones where a lot of confusion is occuring are:

Immunity to [Element] and Enemy Type

Now where it concerns Enemy Types, the ruling is clear from the FAQ. "Effective Against" and "Doesn't Affect" are capable of canceling each other out. From a calculations point the function would look like this:

Standard Damage Output = a*Power

Where:

if # of "Effective Against" > or = # of "Doesn't Affect" then a = 2^(# of "Effective Against" - # of "Doesn't Affect")

if # of "Effective Against" < # of "Doesn't Affect" then a = 0

The most recent confusion is concerning the Immunity to [Element] effect and whether it is to be treated in the same way as Enemy Type. Sandy and Myself, and others I may be unaware of have always treated it as so. Zepher, Pie, and other QM's have treated the two differently. In the latter case Immunity to [Element] over-rides all other multipliers, specifically Enemy Type. Thus if the monster is attacked by the immune element, all damage will be multiplied by 0.

The suggestion has been made to define new terms in order for both interpretations to be utilized in specific cases:

• 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.
  

Resistant to [Element]: Follows the current interpretation of the ruling by Sandy, where in Enemy Typing and Immune to [Element] are treated similarly and can therefor cancel each other out.

Immune to [Element]: Follows the interpretation that seems to be held by the majority of the player base, wherein Enemy Typing and Immune to [Element] would be unrelated and distinct multipliers.

Observations:

If a distinction is made and a new "Resistance to [Element]" is implemented and used frequently by QM's, the game will continue much the same for the most part.

If a distinction is not made and the current "Immune to [Element]" interpretation by Sandy is upheld, the game will continue much the same for the most part.

If a distinction is not made and the "Immune to [Element]" effect is ruled according to the interpretation of Zepher, Pie, and the majority of the player base, the game will shift more towards players carrying more weapons with different gems imbued in them order to avoid being rendered useless by the effect.

If I am representing anything incorrectly, please let me know and I'll make adjustments, but hopefully this gets everyone on the same page where it concerns the current rulings.

Edited April 29, 2014 by Waterbrick Down

[joeshmoe554]

One minor math correction

if # of "Effective Against" > or = # of "Doesn't Affect" then a = 2^(# of "Effective Against" - # of "Doesn't Affect")

if # of "Effective Against" < # of "Doesn't Affect" then a = 0

3 effective elements is an 8x multiplier, not a 6x one.

[Waterbrick Down]

One minor math correction

if # of "Effective Against" > or = # of "Doesn't Affect" then a = 2^(# of "Effective Against" - # of "Doesn't Affect")

if # of "Effective Against" < # of "Doesn't Affect" then a = 0

3 effective elements is an 8x multiplier, not a 6x one.

Fixed. Knew something was off, thanks.

[Sandy]

Like I said, I am willing to enforce a rule that any enemy with a specified *Immune to [Element]* effect will never take damage from that element despite what it's type might be. It's the most logical answer to this problem.

I think I've overlooked this issue because I don't think I've ever used that effect myself, and have always relied with just the types when designing enemies.

I hear you in that the "change" might cause a change in how players build their inventory of weapons, but since not all QMs use the *Immune to [Element]* effect anyway, and the rest do it infrequently, I don't think the change is very drastic at all.

[swils]

So for "Generic Beast, (Immune to Fire)" being attacked by a Ruby/Opal imbued weapon, would the multiplier be x2 (for the opal) or x0 (due to the ruby)?