Heroica RPG Rules & FAQ

[LordoftheNoobs]

Depends on how long, really. I've seen at least a few instances where they were booted out of the quest and replaced with someone else in the hall.

[Actaeon]

Depends on how long, really. I've seen at least a few instances where they were booted out of the quest and replaced with someone else in the hall.

Alright, that makes sense.

[Scubacarrot]

It also of course depends on how people communicate their absence. If someone goes on holiday for a week or something and relays this, this will never be a problem. If someone suddenly goes missing, this is something else. For party leaders I'd make a decision between in-character sense and activeness, because an active party leader is generally better.

[Actaeon]

It also of course depends on how people communicate their absence. If someone goes on holiday for a week or something and relays this, this will never be a problem. If someone suddenly goes missing, this is something else. For party leaders I'd make a decision between in-character sense and activeness, because an active party leader is generally better.

Thanks for the tips!

[JimBee]

Rule clarification for Minstrel (I'll ask in here in case Sandy or the general public didn't see it in 98 in case we wanted a discussion on it): Since they are not in the battle order when they sing and their songs are sung for the duration of a round, does that mean the Lullaby song keeps enemies asleep as long as it is sung, even if they are attacked (and would wake up in a normal circumstance)?

This is the was Dirge of the Phoenix was run in 93 (keeps everyone in the party alive with 1 health for the whole round and any consequent rounds for which that song is sung).

I think this is correct, but if so Minstrel is incredibly overpowered. I know 93 was a lab to test out some of the Expert classes, but the conclusion to be reached here is that the class needs to be adjusted. First off, since it's not in the BO it can't take Free Hits (but if I understand correctly, can be hit by AoE specials). This alone makes battles virtually un-loseable as long as the Minstrel has ether. Second, since songs last the duration of a round, their effects can't really be undone unless the Minstrel stops.

So, I propose we change the Minstrel so that:

- It is included in the Battle Order, and singing is an optional, non-targeting action that has it's effects start at the turn of the Minstrel in the BO. Rapid March, Lucky Chant, Ballad of Bravery and Hard Rock Anthem's effects last through the end of the following round (like Aura). They do take Free Hits and any other form of damage normally.

- Minstrels can be Hastened or Slowed, and can sing multiple songs in a round. The songs' effects last as long as listed, so Dirge of the Phoenix instantly revives all party members with 1 health at the cost of 10 ether, Lucky Chant gives all party members the Lucky-effect until the end of the next round at the cost of 3 ether, and Angelic Aria deals light damage to all enemies equal to the Minstrel's level instantly, at the cost of 10 ether.

- Ether costs and effect duration can be adjusted.

I think this would be the simplest and most effective way of adjusting the class. Nothing fundamental about it has changed, it's still very much a support class with a completely separate option to do just that: support, as well as the usual battle rolls for attacking. And I know this has been brought up before, but I think it's time to actually take action and change the class.

[Flipz]

It was agreed that we try out the stacking mechanics on Poisoned first before extending it to other similar effects, to see how it works first.

I personally think the change was for the better.

Bringing this up again because I'd like to know if you'd be okay with allowing stacking on Bleeding, Cursed, and Burning specifically. In the case of Bleeding I can just as easily swap it for Poisoned by the desired amount, but for Burning specifically it involves a pre-existing NPC roll created by another QM that I'm not really comfortable changing to poison.

[Sandy]

Rule clarification for Minstrel (I'll ask in here in case Sandy or the general public didn't see it in 98 in case we wanted a discussion on it):

Thanks for your comments, they're really helpful.

Like I said before, the Minstrel class needs a change, and it didn't become evident until it was tested out in action. I am going to change it, but I need to think carefully what things to change and how.

Biggest problems I see for the class now:

- Potential invincibility because it cannot be harmed when singing.

- Overpowered because it can damage enemies without the risk of getting damaged.

- How various effects affect the Battle Song is unclear.

- If the ether cost of the songs are in proportion to their effectiveness.

I'm going to take the suggestions you and the others brought up into consideration, so thanks for them again. Please be patient while I make the adjustments.

Bringing this up again because I'd like to know if you'd be okay with allowing stacking on Bleeding, Cursed, and Burning specifically. In the case of Bleeding I can just as easily swap it for Poisoned by the desired amount, but for Burning specifically it involves a pre-existing NPC roll created by another QM that I'm not really comfortable changing to poison.

Hmm... For bleeding it makes sense for the damage to stack with each strike (since a new "wound" is opened), but I'm not sure if someone can be "increasingly cursed". There can be various grades of cursed, though, like "Cursed by 10" etc., but I don't think it should stack. The same goes for Blessed and Transcended - I could change it so that they can heal various amounts of health/ether, but they shouldn't stack if recast. Any thoughts?

Burning is not an official effect, so I'm not going to comment on that.

[CMP]

You should consider scaling ether cost to the number of target it affects, like the Arc Scrolls.

[Sandy]

You should consider scaling ether cost to the number of target it affects, like the Arc Scrolls.

I have considered it, but Flipz spoke against that.

It would mean people with unique Battle Songs in their inventories should fix those as well.

[Flare]

- Overpowered because it can damage enemies without the risk of getting damaged.

Doesn't the Necromancer work in a similar way? I think that the ether costs balance this out fine and dandy.

[Sandy]

Doesn't the Necromancer work in a similar way? I think that the ether costs balance this out fine and dandy.

The difference is that the Necromancer is susceptible to Free Hits, and getting knocked out will cause his or her army to disappear instantly. The Minstrel has no such weaknesses at the moment.

[JimBee]

Thanks for your comments, they're really helpful.

Like I said before, the Minstrel class needs a change, and it didn't become evident until it was tested out in action. I am going to change it, but I need to think carefully what things to change and how.

I'm going to take the suggestions you and the others brought up into consideration, so thanks for them again. Please be patient while I make the adjustments.

I understand. I just wanted to give concrete suggestions on how to balance the class (past complaints seemed vague).

Hmm... For bleeding it makes sense for the damage to stack with each strike (since a new "wound" is opened), but I'm not sure if someone can be "increasingly cursed". There can be various grades of cursed, though, like "Cursed by 10" etc., but I don't think it should stack. The same goes for Blessed and Transcended - I could change it so that they can heal various amounts of health/ether, but they shouldn't stack if recast. Any thoughts?

Burning is not an official effect, so I'm not going to comment on that.

Bleeding should definitely stack. I don't see the issue with Cursed; the damage done corresponds to the severity of the curse. If a witch keeps chanting the spell that causes the curse, the rate at which the hero's health deteriorates increases. Same with Blessed and Transcended. Also I think the variability and usefulness of these effects increasing with the rule change is more important than the effect relating to the word used to describe it for an exact fit.

[Zepher]

I agree with JimBee. Letting them stack will add more variety to QM balancing and Hero strategizing, regardless of if it fits in nicely with the words.

[Flipz]

Erm, actually, Blinded does not prevent Special Damage.

Here's how the three damage prevention effects compare when used on enemies:

Blinded: Prevents all damage from 4 and 5 rolls and Free Hits.

Sealed: Prevents all damage from 6 rolls only.

Asleep: Prevents all damage from 4,5, and 6 rolls and Free Hits, but vanishes as soon as the enemy takes damage.

[Palathadric]

QM Note: I'm assuming you mean a situation in which there is three free hits, and it looks something like...

>Arthur

>Minoid

>Arthur

In which case, yes, you would have two free hits combined into 1, because there is another hero in the middle. I will read through the FAQ topic again for the sake of correctness, but I am fairly sure that is how it works.

Actually, I think the rule is that hastened heroes do not eat up more free hits than a non-hastened hero. I think some leeway was given to this by Sandy though, although I can't quite recall it. I think it was that as long as the QM is consistent.

[Endgame]

The exact wording from the faq list is that the free hit "Goes to the first hero, than the second." Arthur is one hero, therefore preventing him from eating two consecutive free hits. If there is a hero between the two actions, however, that would make Arthur the first and third hero, allowing him to take a free hit.

[Sandy]

If there is a hero between the two actions, however, that would make Arthur the first and third hero, allowing him to take a free hit.

Nope, the way it works is that hastened heroes do not suffer from any more Free Hits than others. The logic behind it is that Free Hits are divided as evenly as possible between all heroes, and there's not "two Arthurs" in the battle, Arthur is just fast enough to act twice.

[JimBee]

There was a discussion about in the Rules a while ago. I think it was changed to make it more balanced.

Brought up in the Rules topic for clarification. I did [sortKey]=date&cType=topic&cId=84381&search_app_filters[forums][sortKey]=date&search_term=dual+strike&search_app=forums&st=25"]search of the topic and there doesn't seem to be any changes to rules on dual strike.

The question is, can a dual strike's secondary attack target be chosen, or does it have to be the next enemy in order?

I've had one of the first dual strike weapons created since Q50, and I've always been able to choose my secondary targets. Sandy has run it this way himself (and dropped the item in his quest), and a debate has never arisen since then about the rule. But the FAQ does state "enemy next in order".

Personally I don't think what's usually alphabetical order should determine secondary targets, but that's just me.

[Brickdoctor]

I'm torn. On one hand, letting the player choose just seems to make sense — it just seems like the right and fair thing, and it also seems simpler and more intuitive.

On the other hand, the realistic approach is that if you have some special weapon letting you attack two enemies in the time it would normally take to attack one, then that second enemy must be somewhere nearby, and you wouldn't realistically have control over how your enemies decided to approach you or where they decided to stand or how they decided to form their line of battle. That would realistically be the NPC's call prior to the battle, and the QM makes the NPC's decisions, so that NPC decision of where to stand is best represented as the QM's choice of how to order the list of the enemies.

[Waterbrick Down]

Brought up in the Rules topic for clarification. I did search of the topic and there doesn't seem to be any changes to rules on dual strike.

The question is, can a dual strike's secondary attack target be chosen, or does it have to be the next enemy in order?

I've had one of the first dual strike weapons created since Q50, and I've always been able to choose my secondary targets. Sandy has run it this way himself (and dropped the item in his quest), and a debate has never arisen since then about the rule. But the FAQ does state "enemy next in order".

Personally I don't think what's usually alphabetical order should determine secondary targets, but that's just me.

I've always seen it as the either the enemy following directly or the same enemy twice. If you can choose the secondary target at will, you can avoid a lot of nasty specials simply by never targeting them directly. If you want to use that strategy than you'll have to compromise a little by having to attack the target above the nasty special, for better or for worse.

[Sandy]

The question is, can a dual strike's secondary attack target be chosen, or does it have to be the next enemy in order?

I've had one of the first dual strike weapons created since Q50, and I've always been able to choose my secondary targets. Sandy has run it this way himself (and dropped the item in his quest), and a debate has never arisen since then about the rule. But the FAQ does state "enemy next in order".

Personally I don't think what's usually alphabetical order should determine secondary targets, but that's just me.

I apologize if I've ran it incorrectly, since the original intention was to restrict dual striking to two enemies next to each other (or one enemy twice). Allowing you to do otherwise must've been an oversight on my behalf.

But like Doc, I feel divided about the issue as well. We can certainly discuss the rule change, but I don't think I'm in favor of changing it anymore.

All QMs and players with Dual Strike weapons just have to be more mindful of the rule in the future. It is written in the FAQ, after all.

[Zepher]

I agree that it should stay with the limitation! It lets you dodge some specials, and it can be added to hastened (there's no way to be doubly lucky/encouraged) so I think it needs something to make it a little less perfect.

[Palathadric]

I apologize if I've ran it incorrectly, since the original intention was to restrict dual striking to two enemies next to each other (or one enemy twice). Allowing you to do otherwise must've been an oversight on my behalf.

Just to make sure I'm not somehow reading it wrong, this does allow you to hit the enemy above the one you are targeting, right?

Edited June 26, 2014 by Palathadric

[StickFig]

Lastly, shouldn't our health and ether be back to full after resting on bedrolls?

Ether is not returned when sleeping - though health is!

I wasn't sure because I was looking at the description in the Marketplace: Bedroll (Allows the user to rest and regain health and ether in a safe place.)

This definitely sounds to me like health and ether are restored any time a bedroll is used. Can we get a ruling on this? And what does it mean "in a safe place"?

[Flipz]

Yeah, health AND Ether are restored. Check the Fields.