Heroica RPG Rules & FAQ

[Tachyon]

Uhh maybe if it cannot damage the first hero, it damages the next hero in battle order ?

[Sandy]

Uhh maybe if it cannot damage the first hero, it damages the next hero in battle order ?

Umm, that's what I said.

[Kintobor]

Hmm. I definitely like it more than the previous idea, since it comes down to a QM deciding what to do, and it more or less discourages the idea. I would like to suggest though that the reason this game works is its simplicity. Once again, what one QM thinks for when to break this out, and what another deems are two completely different scenarios. If you could find a standard, say if as you said, an enemy's combined attack cannot deal damage to a hero hiding in the back row with SP that is half its own level, it moves it's attack to the next hero in the battle order. Then it comes down to how do we deal with heroes with high SP, since all our Mystic Knights (and Docken ) are essentially useless, since they're now effectively forced to fight in the front or damage their teammates.

I think we're on the right track, but I feel this isn't the proper solution.

[Sandy]

Hmm. I definitely like it more than the previous idea, since it comes down to a QM deciding what to do, and it more or less discourages the idea. I would like to suggest though that the reason this game works is its simplicity. Once again, what one QM thinks for when to break this out, and what another deems are two completely different scenarios. If you could find a standard, say if as you said, an enemy's combined attack cannot deal damage to a hero hiding in the back row with SP that is half its own level, it moves it's attack to the next hero in the battle order. Then it comes down to how do we deal with heroes with high SP, since all our Mystic Knights (and Docken ) are essentially useless, since they're now effectively forced to fight in the front or damage their teammates.

I think you misunderstood my suggestion. It's not up to the QM to decide whether the enemy gets a Free Hit or not, it's down to mathemathics. An untargetted enemy will get a Free Hit on the first hero in the order of action that it can cause damage to. If the enemy cannot cause damage with a Free Hit to any of the heroes, it will instead do nothing.

The Free Hit will be directed to the first hero in the order of action as long as it's able to deal even 1 point of damage. That way the entire party cannot hide behind one hero with high SP anymore.

Of course Aura will still continue to draw all attacks, but if the Aura-user cannot be damaged, the enemy will refuse to attack.

[PsyKater]

I think it's a good idea. Noone would be so stupid to repeatedly attack someone they cannot hurt while risking to get hurt instead.

If the problem is the Counterstrike Gloves, then perhaps they should be changed to offer something similar to the Mirror Damage ability that Sorcerers have--that is, rather than dealing damage equal to the Hero's Level, they deal damage equal to the damage taken. That way, the Heroes have to take damage in order to deal damage.

I like this idea as well though. It's even simpler

[Endgame]

Question: If someone consumes something that grants an Ether boost when they do not actually have ether, is that part of the consumable thrown away, or should it be recorded in the even that they eventually gain ether?

[Kintobor]

I'd record it. They may not have ether yet, but whose to say they won't go down an ether related road later?

[Etzel]

I'd say it's wasted. You can't boost something you don't have yet. + it's easier for everyone to keep track of it that way.

[Sandy]

Question: If someone consumes something that grants an Ether boost when they do not actually have ether, is that part of the consumable thrown away, or should it be recorded in the even that they eventually gain ether?

No, consumables have instant effects. You can't take an aspirin and expect it to cure an headache you might have five days from now.

[Capt.JohnPaul]

I think you misunderstood my suggestion. It's not up to the QM to decide whether the enemy gets a Free Hit or not, it's down to mathemathics. An untargetted enemy will get a Free Hit on the first hero in the order of action that it can cause damage to. If the enemy cannot cause damage with a Free Hit to any of the heroes, it will instead do nothing.

The Free Hit will be directed to the first hero in the order of action as long as it's able to deal even 1 point of damage. That way the entire party cannot hide behind one hero with high SP anymore.

Of course Aura will still continue to draw all attacks, but if the Aura-user cannot be damaged, the enemy will refuse to attack.

But that really devalues a knight. He's supposed to step in and defend the weak.

Edited October 5, 2013 by Capt.JohnPaul

[UsernameMDM]

I don't like that ruling. How about something even much more simple:

At least 1 Hero has to attack during a round.

[Waterbrick Down]

I'M A GENIUS!

Well, not really, but I think I found a simple solution to fix the loophole without making anyone feel treated unfairly.

What if we give enemies a dash of A.I., so that they will not use Free Hits on heroes that they cannot damage? If a Level 50 enemy is faced with a hero who has over 25 SP and stands in the back row, the enemy will deem the hero futile to attack, and instead targets the next hero in order with the Free Hit. Then, when only this impossibly defensive hero is left, the enemy will simply do nothing, forcing a stale-mate. This will prevent the enemies from bashing their heads repeatedly and automatically on an undefeatable barrier, and force at least one hero to take a chance and attack the enemy directly.

So, am I a genius or what?

While, it seems realistic, it really puts more work on the party leader as it's no longer as simple as putting the guy with the highest SP first in the battle order, he/she has to make sure they don't have too high SP. My inner QM really likes the rule because it means that players will be forced to attack either high level enemies or ones with really nasty specials instead of letting a counter-striking knight deal with them, however my inner player agrees with CJP in that it devalues knight classes. I'm more for the "mirror-type" counter-strike glove solution as it still respects the knight's purpose as a class and prevents the easy use of the wait-out strategy. Edited October 5, 2013 by Waterbrick Down

[Tachyon]

Wait with Mirror Damage, does the hero have to survive the damage before mirroring it ?

[Vash the Stampede]

I'd say adding a dash of A.I would work. It wouldn't nullify things that people have worked hard on to achieve and makes logical sense. Though rather than forcing a stalemate I think something else needs to happen. If an enemy cannot beat heroes due to distance or another reason why would they stare at them until they do something?

Question: If someone consumes something that grants an Ether boost when they do not actually have ether, is that part of the consumable thrown away, or should it be recorded in the even that they eventually gain ether?

No, consumables have instant effects. You can't take an aspirin and expect it to cure an headache you might have five days from now.

I'm not sure I'd go with this. If you are an non ether user and later become an ether user and then later swap to another class which doesn't use ether, or an ether user that swaps to a non ether class, by this logic all of your permanent boosts to ether would be reset which would make ether boosts in general less appealing wouldn't it? What's to say the ordinary citizen doesn't have some untapped ether skill somewhere in them?

[Brickdoctor]

But that really devalues a knight. He's supposed to step in and defend the weak.

While, it seems realistic, it really puts more work on the party leader as it's no longer as simple as putting the guy with the highest SP first in the battle order, he/she has to make sure they don't have too high SP. My inner QM really likes the rule because it means that players will be forced to attack either high level enemies or ones with really nasty specials instead of letting a counter-striking knight deal with them, however my inner player agrees with CJP in that it devalues knight classes. I'm more for the "mirror-type" counter-strike glove solution as it still respects the knight's purpose as a class and prevents the easy use of the wait-out strategy.

I agree. It removes a large part of the benefit of good Order strategy while at the same time making the process of setting up the Order more complicated, and as John Paul said it devalues the Knight whose main role and ability are to be able to take Damage for other heroes.

[UsernameMDM]

So best option is my last suggestion?

[Scorpiox]

I'M A GENIUS!

Well, not really, but I think I found a simple solution to fix the loophole without making anyone feel treated unfairly.

What if we give enemies a dash of A.I., so that they will not use Free Hits on heroes that they cannot damage? If a Level 50 enemy is faced with a hero who has over 25 SP and stands in the back row, the enemy will deem the hero futile to attack, and instead targets the next hero in order with the Free Hit. Then, when only this impossibly defensive hero is left, the enemy will simply do nothing, forcing a stale-mate. This will prevent the enemies from bashing their heads repeatedly and automatically on an undefeatable barrier, and force at least one hero to take a chance and attack the enemy directly.

So, am I a genius or what?

I'm reluctant to accept this. Heroes having to consider whether or not they are too powerful is a bad thing. What will happen with this update is that all of the back-row tanks will become useless and the squishy mages will end up taking all of the hits.

[Scubacarrot]

The enemy checks who to attack is a pretty bad idea, because free hits will often end up ganged up on the squishy members. (Say, 5 level 5 free hits, three party members, two have >5sp, person 3 will take all 5 hits) How about instead of that, a slightly different version: If an enemy can't hurt the person in the order they are supposed to attack, they do nothing.

No, consumables have instant effects. You can't take an aspirin and expect it to cure an headache you might have five days from now.

You misunderstand, they were talking about PERMANENT Ether boosts.

I'd say record it. It'd be pretty bad otherwise, someone could switch classes to one without Ether, and lose their permanent Ether buffs.

[Sandy]

But that really devalues a knight. He's supposed to step in and defend the weak.

How does it devaluate knights? They can still step in and defend the weak, the only exception being if their SP outnumbers the enemy's strength. And remember that this only applies to Free Hits. If a hero with overly high SP targets an enemy and rolls DAMAGE, the enemy's attack will still be futile.

How about instead of that, a slightly different version: If an enemy can't hurt the person in the order they are supposed to attack, they do nothing.

That would mean an automatic stale-mate. It's a compromise, but my suggestion would make battles more challenging and strategic, as well as potentially quicker.

You misunderstand, they were talking about PERMANENT Ether boosts.

I'd say record it. It'd be pretty bad otherwise, someone could switch classes to one without Ether, and lose their permanent Ether buffs.

No, permanent ether boosts don't count either. If the person has no access to ether, it cannot be boosted. Nobody's forcing people to use their buffing consumables right away, you can always wait until you actually have ether.

[Scorpiox]

How does it devaluate knights? They can still step in and defend the weak, the only exception being if their SP outnumbers the enemy's strength. And remember that this only applies to Free Hits. If a hero with overly high SP targets an enemy and rolls DAMAGE, the enemy's attack will still be futile.

They can only step-in and defend the weak if their defence is low enough.

[Endgame]

How does it devaluate knights? They can still step in and defend the weak, the only exception being if their SP outnumbers the enemy's strength. And remember that this only applies to Free Hits. If a hero with overly high SP targets an enemy and rolls DAMAGE, the enemy's attack will still be futile.

That would mean an automatic stale-mate. It's a compromise, but my suggestion would make battles more challenging and strategic, as well as potentially quicker.

It essentially punishes knights for having too high of an SP and would result in the weaker heroes getting more free hits they wouldn't normally, possibly extending the battle further.

[Sandy]

What will happen with this update is that all of the back-row tanks will become useless and the squishy mages will end up taking all of the hits.

How will they become useless?! Like I said, this only applies to situations where someone has overly high SP - and it's unlikely that a party has more than one of those. The squishy mages can be put last in the battle order, so the sturdier heroes absorb the damage then.

And the rule about multiple Free Hits grouping against a hero still stands, so if two enemies get a Free Hit on a hero with SP that would be too high for either of them individually, they still get their combined attack through.

Listen, heroes can afford to get hurt. That's why there's healing classes and items in this game! You sound like it's unfair that a party cannot get a clean sweep on a boss enemy...

They can only step-in and defend the weak if their defence is low enough.

Low enough? Are you kidding me?! SP is meant to absorb some damage, not nullify it completely!

[Endgame]

How will they become useless?! Like I said, this only applies to situations where someone has overly high SP

SP they earned completely legitmately using an established and long-standing system, when the only real problem is the Gloves themselves. Why not just apply the mirror damage clause? It fixes the problem nigh instantly.

[Flare]

If the problem is the Counterstrike Gloves, then perhaps they should be changed to offer something similar to the Mirror Damage ability that Sorcerers have--that is, rather than dealing damage equal to the Hero's Level, they deal damage equal to the damage taken. That way, the Heroes have to take damage in order to deal damage.

I'm finding myself agreeing to Flipz earlier suggestion - changing not other things but instead the counterstriking function - so instead of counterstriking with damage equal to level, the counterstrike will cause damage equal to the damage taken. I think this sounds much fairer than all other suggestions.

[Sandy]

It essentially punishes knights for having too high of an SP

Only if they avoid attacking the enemy and cause it to get a Free Hit on them. It punishes cowardice, nothing else.