Heroica RPG Rules & FAQ

[Rumble Strike]

I just wanted to check something Pie said in the Hall thread.

Tarn currently has the Skull Shield (SP:6; immunity to darkness; suitable to Black Knights only.

Is the darkness immunity contained within it gem-powered? If so, can the gem be taken out? If it is, can the shield then be used by anyone, or would it still be locked into Black Knight use?

[Waterbrick Down]

I just wanted to check something Pie said in the Hall thread.

Tarn currently has the Skull Shield (SP:6; immunity to darkness; suitable to Black Knights only.

Is the darkness immunity contained within it gem-powered? If so, can the gem be taken out? If it is, can the shield then be used by anyone, or would it still be locked into Black Knight use?

Generally the rule is that if something provides an immunity to an element then it is gem powered, if it provides an immunity to a type it is just part of the artifact. Same goes for weapons, if it does elemental damage it's gem powered, if it only provides extra damage against a type it is part of the weapon.

[Scubacarrot]

Gems can be imbued in shields, which means you can take them out. If a shield has an elemental immunity, it has a gem in it, unless stated otherwise. I think the only thing I have seen that in is in a torch type weapon though. The shield is locked to Black Knights no matter what.

[-obelix-]

Generally the rule is that if something provides an immunity to an element then it is gem powered, if it provides an immunity to a type it is just part of the artifact. Same goes for weapons, if it does elemental damage it's gem powered, if it only provides extra damage against a type it is part of the weapon.

Gems can be imbued in shields, which means you can take them out. If a shield has an elemental immunity, it has a gem in it, unless stated otherwise. I think the only thing I have seen that in is in a torch type weapon though. The shield is locked to Black Knights no matter what.

I think so too; gems can be taken out of items which have elemental properties - attack or immunities (weapons, shields and artifacts) - but that shield will stay {SP:6, suitable to Black Knights only}.

[Sandy]

RULE CHANGE SUGGESTION TIME!

I've been thinking about some balance issues that the positive effects can cause (especially when paired with Aura or Counterstrike Gloves), so how would it sound if the positive effects that last for one battle would be restricted to lasting a maximum of 10 rounds of battle? I already used the mechanic in the continuous battle of Quest#50, and I thought it worked quite well to keep the challenge then.

Is the darkness immunity contained within it gem-powered? If so, can the gem be taken out? If it is, can the shield then be used by anyone, or would it still be locked into Black Knight use?

Yes, the elemental gem can be taken out of it, but why would that affect any other properties the shield has?

[Pyrovisionary]

That seems fair, yes.

[CMP]

Sounds good to me.

[Scorpiox]

I would say no, but that's just me.

[Sandy]

I would say no, but that's just me.

Care to elaborate on that? I can't take your opinion into account if you don't give me reasons for it.

[UsernameMDM]

Only if negative effects that are only relieved by a remedy are limited too.

[Waterbrick Down]

I'm in favor of the idea, however, how many times is the system abused due to the fact that battle's difficulty might be necessitating it? I do understand that the current battle in the unlimited quest has somewhat made the issue more prominent, but I don't think we'd be resorting to such a strategy if we felt we were capable of winning the battle without it. So yes, I'm for it just as long as QM's (including myself) don't present situations where that strategy is a necessity.

Out of curiosity, does anyone know how may rounds the longest battle was that didn't employ the counterstrike/poison wait out strategy? I know the longest battles of Quest 48 lasted 31 rounds and Quest 31 lasted 25 rounds and might have lasted longer.

Edited October 3, 2013 by Waterbrick Down

[Sandy]

Only if negative effects that are only relieved by a remedy are limited too.

You forget that enemies don't use remedies, so there's no balance issue with negative effects.

[UsernameMDM]

You forget that enemies don't use remedies, so there's no balance issue with negative effects.

I meant negative effects on heroes. If a positive effect can expire, then so should a negative effect, for both a player and an enemy.

[Sandy]

I'm in favor of the idea, however, how many times is the system abused due to the fact that battle's difficulty might be necessitating it?

I have never (at least on purpose) created an enemy that couldn't be defeated without resorting to the wait-out strategy. I admit that it's a flaw in game design that such a strategy even exists, but that's why I'm trying to find a solution to it.

[Waterbrick Down]

I have never (at least on purpose) created an enemy that couldn't be defeated without resorting to the wait-out strategy. I admit that it's a flaw in game design that such a strategy even exists, but that's why I'm trying to find a solution to it.

I won't argue that you ever intend to do so and I should have conditioned my statement to say that I have never seen an enemy that required such a strategy, but I have seen enemies where victory is so unlikely that it requires contemplation of the strategy.

[Sandy]

If a positive effect can expire, then so should a negative effect, for both a player and an enemy.

Why? Negative effects can be removed with a remedy, positive effects cannot. The heroes already have an upper hand over the enemies in that.

Besides, the only effects that last for the entire duration of the battle are petrified, afraid, enraged, slowed and jinxed. But it's not a big problem making all of those last a maximum of 10 rounds (except that it would change petrified into a non-detrimental effect), if you guys feel strongly about it.

[Waterbrick Down]

I'd say leave the negative effects as they are.

[Scorpiox]

Care to elaborate on that? I can't take your opinion into account if you don't give me reasons for it.

Consumables are often a trade-off with getting new equipment for non-gold-farming classes, and so are most commonly used by those classes in difficult battles. Difficult battles are rarely short - therefore with this rule it's likely that non-rogue classes wouldn't get their money's worth. This is a rule that I can see implemented to try and manage buffed-up raiders and assassins, but unfortunately would probably affect other classes more noticeably.

[Waterbrick Down]

Consumables are often a trade-off with getting new equipment for non-gold-farming classes, and so are most commonly used by those classes in difficult battles. Difficult battles are rarely short - therefore with this rule it's likely that non-rogue classes wouldn't get their money's worth. This is a rule that I can see implemented to try and manage buffed-up raiders and assassins, but unfortunately would probably affect other classes more noticeably.

Perhaps a better question would be to ask for suggestions to keep the counter-strike/poison wait around strategy from being abused.

[UsernameMDM]

Why? Negative effects can be removed with a remedy, positive effects cannot. The heroes already have an upper hand over the enemies in that.

Besides, the only effects that last for the entire duration of the battle are petrified, afraid, enraged, slowed and jinxed. But it's not a big problem making all of those last a maximum of 10 rounds (except that it would change petrified into a non-detrimental effect), if you guys feel strongly about it.

And I've seen enemies that can steal positive effects, deal special damage if not targeted, etc. I'm just saying, that in a the 'in-game' universe, that if a positive effect is temporary, then it would make sense a negative effect would be temporary also.

[JimBee]

I would be in favor of positive effects lasting 10 rounds. Although the current UQers have been awesome by not abusing the wait-out strategy, it can break a battle.

[Brickdoctor]

Generally any wait-it-out strategy that relies on positive effects isn't a true wait-it-out strategy, except in some cases with Hastened. Most of the time I think this change would just make those strategies take even longer. (Which I think is your goal.) It's fine with me. Plus now there's even more incentive for Rogues to buff their allies to end battles quickly.

[Waterbrick Down]

Generally any wait-it-out strategy that relies on positive effects isn't a true wait-it-out strategy, except in some cases with Hastened. Most of the time I think this change would just make those strategies take even longer. (Which I think is your goal.) It's fine with me. Plus now there's even more incentive for Rogues to buff their allies to end battles quickly.

Actually the Reinforced effect is the one causing the issue. Take Hoke for instance, if he were to be reinforced it would take a monster of Level 109 to do any damage to him. If it's one on one, he can counter-strike pretty much anything to death at this point.

Actually an easy way around this wait-out problem is just to add a passive special that free-hits ignore SP.

[Scubacarrot]

Another solution would be to stop allowing people to do nothing.

[UsernameMDM]

Actually an easy way around this wait-out problem is just to add a passive special that free-hits ignore SP.

Then Counterstrike Gloves would be useless because they only apply to free-hits.