Heroica: Glory Amongst The Stars RPG - Game Development

[Yzalirk]

59 minutes ago, samurai-turtle said:

I did have an idea or two. The first one is add agility to the "stat page" and this will tell you how many spaces you can move during a turn.  Maybe it would be a proficiency or it scales like one. 

That could be an added bonus to Athletics since that is already a proficiency.  Maybe every 5 Athletics or so you gain an additional movement spot?

[Duvors]

On 3/11/2020 at 12:42 AM, Goliath said:

-snip-

But why though? You're suggesting a radical change to the rules (one that gets rid of something I really like I may add) but I don't see the reason for it. There doesn't seem to be any problems with the system that this would actually solve, and the problems that do exist are completely unaddressed. Ultimately it seems as if you're creating solutions to problems that don't actually exist.

Also, I'd like to point out that under the system you've described any spell caster can cast any spell as often as they want with the only real restriction being how many spell they know. Unless you want everyone to be playing a magical character without any mundanes then that's a major balance issue.

[Yzalirk]

6 hours ago, Lord Duvors said:

But why though? You're suggesting a radical change to the rules (one that gets rid of something I really like I may add) but I don't see the reason for it. There doesn't seem to be any problems with the system that this would actually solve, and the problems that do exist are completely unaddressed. Ultimately it seems as if you're creating solutions to problems that don't actually exist.

Also, I'd like to point out that under the system you've described any spell caster can cast any spell as often as they want with the only real restriction being how many spell they know. Unless you want everyone to be playing a magical character without any mundanes then that's a major balance issue.

Again, you have not thrown in any ideas so we can make adjustments. And when you snip something I said it is hard to exactly pinpoint what you take issue with.

I strongly believe the idea I suggested to change the magic system is what the game needs or, at the very least, is a step in the right direction.  Currently it seems like it is just there for the sake of being there.  More of a utility thing than anything but you are heavily restricted.  Under this system a magic build would require more investment than any build.  You would need to upgrade Spirit to learn more Spell Types.  You need to upgrade Arcana to do more damage because there are no Arcana weapons to boost your damage and healing.  And you would need to upgrade either Nature or Technology to further broaden your abilities.  Players will not be a damage champion if they pursue this route but you they would have access to more actions that will help the team.

And I think you would be surprised that not everyone wants to be a magic user.  Someone could just as easily use choose Artillery and manually heal players with healing items.  The first character I had in mind would not utilize any magic at all.  But with these suggestions I am giving it really makes me want to try out a magic build and just see how it would work.

[Duvors]

1 hour ago, Goliath said:

I strongly believe the idea I suggested to change the magic system is what the game needs or, at the very least, is a step in the right direction.  Currently it seems like it is just there for the sake of being there.  More of a utility thing than anything but you are heavily restricted.  Under this system a magic build would require more investment than any build.  You would need to upgrade Spirit to learn more Spell Types.  You need to upgrade Arcana to do more damage because there are no Arcana weapons to boost your damage and healing.  And you would need to upgrade either Nature or Technology to further broaden your abilities.  Players will not be a damage champion if they pursue this route but you they would have access to more actions that will help the team.

But requiring characters to take lots of things in order to make a build viable will just discourage them from taking it in the first place. People already are taking issue with that fact that you need at least two levels in a single skill to even cast spells. Why would they want to take levels in two, possibly three, skills in order to make a magic build viable? If anything it seems that what most people want is less investment in magic. I personally am fine with the level of investment necessary now, my main gripe is that the initial rewards of said investment don't seem particularly worthwhile.

 

1 hour ago, Goliath said:

And I think you would be surprised that not everyone wants to be a magic user.  Someone could just as easily use choose Artillery and manually heal players with healing items.  The first character I had in mind would not utilize any magic at all.  But with these suggestions I am giving it really makes me want to try out a magic build and just see how it would work.

What? I though it was clear from my post that I didn't want everyone to be forced to have magic. In fact I see the inability to properly opt out of the system and the absence of any competitive alternative to magic as a problem. To use your example, you say that someone could just use an Artillery weapon and use healing items, but a magic user could also do that just as well as a non magic user and still have spells in addition to that. There's also the point that artillery weapons aren't really as versatile as spells (can you teleport someone with an artillery weapon? What about healing them or removing adverse status effects?) and can't hit anything right next to the wielder. And healing items, while they may heal more then the lowest-level spells, can only be used on one person at a time (and only if that person is directly adjacent to the user) and once used go away forever (making the character's healing capabilities heavily dependent on enemy drops and having money to burn at the marketplace). This last point is in contrast to spells, whose uses are only limited per battle (or if we adopt your system, not limited at all).

Edited March 12, 2020 by Lord Duvors

[Yzalirk]

46 minutes ago, Lord Duvors said:

But requiring characters to take lots of things in order to make a build viable will just discourage them from taking it in the first place. People already are taking issue with that fact that you need at least two levels in a single skill to even cast spells. Why would they want to take levels in two, possibly three, skills in order to make a magic build viable? If anything it seems that what most people want is less investment in magic. I personally am fine with the level of investment necessary now, my main gripe is that the initial rewards of said investment don't seem particularly worthwhile.

I have no idea what you deem viable but with what I am suggesting there is so much versatility with magic.  You can attack with it, buff / debuff targets, heal targets, etc.  A lot of these actions can be accomplished with items but rather than using the item you can simply cast them.  Difference is magic has the chance to fail.  This system requires you to have at least 1 point in Spirit so you can choose what Spell Type you want.  Arcana would act similarly to the weapon proficiencies.  Nature and Technology will also affect your magic type and experience such as targets affected and duration of certain spells in addition to what they currently do.  I think you are focused on magic only doing damage.  It is not meant to be competing with the existing weapon types because magic users will have a broad range of abilities and a matching range to Artillery weapons.

1 hour ago, Lord Duvors said:

What? I though it was clear from my post that I didn't want everyone to be forced to have magic. In fact I see the inability to properly opt out of the system and the absence of any competitive alternative to magic as a problem. To use your example, you say that someone could just use an Artillery weapon and use healing items, but a magic user could also do that just as well as a non magic user and still have spells in addition to that. There's also the point that artillery weapons aren't really as versatile as spells (can you teleport someone with an artillery weapon? What about healing them or removing adverse status effects?) and can't hit anything right next to the wielder. And healing items, while they may heal more then the lowest-level spells, can only be used on one person at a time (and only if that person is directly adjacent to the user) and once used go away forever (making the character's healing capabilities heavily dependent on enemy drops and having money to burn at the marketplace). This last point is in contrast to spells, whose uses are only limited per battle (or if we adopt your system, not limited at all).

Magic is not forced at all with this system.  You can easily choose not to pursue magic when creating your character.  Simply leave Spirit at 0 and allocate those points elsewhere.  Some items you can purchase will essentially have the same properties as magic but you have to be more conservative with them.  They will always be successful when used whereas when casting them with magic they can fail.

I fail to see what you are getting at.  Casting a spell counts as an action.  You can either choose to attack someone that round or do something else.  No different than someone using an Artillery weapon instead of using magical attacks.  They can attack or use an item that round.  And keep in mind that this is a team game.  Magic users are not meant to be the best at damage because they can support the team in so many ways.  They can still dish out damage but not as much as others.

I can see the problem with choosing Spell Types at the start if you depend on magic but players should know better to include Damage as a starting one.  Some players may opt to use magic just for a single Spell Type other than damage, such as healing or teleportation.  Having Damage be forced as the default will make players have to invest more into magic when they only want certain Spell Types.

Remember that you can get items as loot from battles in addition to purchasing them from the Marketplace.  And these items should be used conservatively.  Difficult Missions and Raids, if those ever become a thing, would be more appropriate to stock up on those items and by that time players should be able to afford those items much more easily.

[Duvors]

1 hour ago, Goliath said:

This system requires you to have at least 1 point in Spirit so you can choose what Spell Type you want.

How is this any different from the current system?

 

1 hour ago, Goliath said:

Arcana would act similarly to the weapon proficiencies.

Why does magic need an equivalent to weapon proficiencies? Are you trying to deal with the issue of magic requiring lots of investment for little initial reward? If that's the case then why reduce all magic to one proficiency rather than dividing it between different ones the way weapons are?

 

1 hour ago, Goliath said:

Nature and Technology will also affect your magic type and experience such as targets affected and duration of certain spells in addition to what they currently do.

So now a person has to invest in two different skills to make their spells better instead of just one? That just seems like adding an extra drain on people's available skill points for no real reason. Especially as nothing else in the game works that way.

 

1 hour ago, Goliath said:

I think you are focused on magic only doing damage.  It is not meant to be competing with the existing weapon types because magic users will have a broad range of abilities and a matching range to Artillery weapons.

On the contrary, it's the fact that magic can do a host of things other than damage while still having the option to do damage on top of that that's the problem. If you take the time to read my post you'll see that the thing I'm taking issue with is the fact that you seem to be suggesting alternatives to using magic that don't actually posses enough versatility to compete properly. In fact it seems like you're the one more focused on attack magic considering your insistence on magic having an equivalent to weapon proficiencies.

 

1 hour ago, Goliath said:

Magic is not forced at all with this system.  You can easily choose not to pursue magic when creating your character.  Simply leave Spirit at 0 and allocate those points elsewhere.

You do understand that this isn't possible under the current system, right? I've actually been considering bringing up the idea of reassigning points as a specific response to this.

Also, you seem to be missing the point of the argument; a person can choose to simply not use magic under the current system and they'd still be fine. The problem I see with your system is that you've simultaneously made magic so good that people will feel obliged to take it in order to compete, while also making it annoying and difficult to use by adding unnecessary bars to actual effectiveness. Under the current system six points is enough to make spells reasonably effective (this is still more than weapons and other proficiencies but that's beside the point). Whereas under yours that only applies to damage spells, which are directly competing with artillery weapons, and make it so you have to spend even more points to get the same effectiveness out of utility spells. Again, nothing else in the game works like this. You can accomplish anything in the game with a single proficiency (plus static modifiers if applicable), having one subsystem that requires you to have two or even three proficiencies just doesn't fit the design of the game.

1 hour ago, Goliath said:

I fail to see what you are getting at.  Casting a spell counts as an action.  You can either choose to attack someone that round or do something else.  No different than someone using an Artillery weapon instead of using magical attacks.  They can attack or use an item that round.  And keep in mind that this is a team game.  Magic users are not meant to be the best at damage because they can support the team in so many ways.  They can still dish out damage but not as much as others.

A magic user still has more options then a guy with just a gun and some potions. Magic users can teleport people, heal at range, summon allies, create illusions and so forth. And a magic user can still have a gun and some potions that are just as good as the other guy's. Ultimately the issue is that a magic user can do everything everyone else can and more. And they only way you've come up with to balance that is to increase the already painful skill tax even further.

 

1 hour ago, Goliath said:

I can see the problem with choosing Spell Types at the start if you depend on magic but players should know better to include Damage as a starting one.  Some players may opt to use magic just for a single Spell Type other than damage, such as healing or teleportation.

How is this any different from the current system?

 

1 hour ago, Goliath said:

Having Damage be forced as the default will make players have to invest more into magic when they only want certain Spell Types.

How the hell is this a good thing? If I only want magic for one spell then why should I be forced to start with a spell I don't want and then spend extra in order to get the one I actually do? That just seems frustrating and unnecessary.

 

1 hour ago, Goliath said:

Remember that you can get items as loot from battles in addition to purchasing them from the Marketplace.

Yes, I explicitly mention that in the post you're quoting:

 

3 hours ago, Lord Duvors said:

(making the character's healing capabilities heavily dependent on enemy drops and having money to burn at the marketplace).

The difference is I view being reliant on random loot to make a build viable as a negative.

 

2 hours ago, Goliath said:

I have Difficult Missions and Raids, if those ever become a thing, would be more appropriate to stock up on those items and by that time players should be able to afford those items much more easily.

Meanwhile, at lower levels when Plasma Potions and Nanite Filters are generally more effective than their equivalent spells players don't have the money to make a healing build entirely reliant on those items viable.

[samurai-turtle]

20 hours ago, Goliath said:

That could be an added bonus to Athletics since that is already a proficiency.  Maybe every 5 Athletics or so you gain an additional movement spot?

Might as well add acrobatics to this list. 

I was thinking about how "magic" could be improved, and thought what if we add up the proficiencies so if you had x amount you get a plus one, and then if you have x amount at "level two" another plus one, and so on. Or add everything up and divide it by a number. 

[Yzalirk]

2 hours ago, Lord Duvors said:

How is this any different from the current system?

Currently when you cast a spell, you use a point of Spirit.  In the system I propose you do not.  Spirit just determines how many Spell Types you know.  Like I stated earlier.

2 hours ago, Lord Duvors said:

Why does magic need an equivalent to weapon proficiencies? Are you trying to deal with the issue of magic requiring lots of investment for little initial reward? If that's the case then why reduce all magic to one proficiency rather than dividing it between different ones the way weapons are?

Because you would be looking at a lot of new proficiencies just to categorize each type of magic spells.  All of that would be unnecessary and be way too overwhelming.  The whole point of investing into this is to become strong later, not initially.  That would be asinine.  Investing in even more things would make becoming a spellcaster pointless.  Investing in Arcana and either Nature and Technology are enough.

2 hours ago, Lord Duvors said:

On the contrary, it's the fact that magic can do a host of things other than damage while still having the option to do damage on top of that that's the problem. If you take the time to read my post you'll see that the thing I'm taking issue with is the fact that you seem to be suggesting alternatives to using magic that don't actually posses enough versatility to compete properly. In fact it seems like you're the one more focused on attack magic considering your insistence on magic having an equivalent to weapon proficiencies.

Because attack magic exists already and seems pointless to even invest in with the current system.  You might as well just attack with your basic weapon and do more damage with that.  So if you invest in one why would you want to invest in the other?  Arcana would solve that issue for players wanting to solely use magic and no guns or melee weapons.

And non-magic players can do the exact same things but they would need specific items so what is your point?  Take your teammates into account.  Players will be bringing in items to do the same things as a magic user.  Having a magic guy on the team is not a requirement at all.

3 hours ago, Lord Duvors said:

You do understand that this isn't possible under the current system, right? I've actually been considering bringing up the idea of reassigning points as a specific response to this.

Also, you seem to be missing the point of the argument; a person can choose to simply not use magic under the current system and they'd still be fine. The problem I see with your system is that you've simultaneously made magic so good that people will feel obliged to take it in order to compete, while also making it annoying and difficult to use by adding unnecessary bars to actual effectiveness. Under the current system six points is enough to make spells reasonably effective (this is still more than weapons and other proficiencies but that's beside the point). Whereas under yours that only applies to damage spells, which are directly competing with artillery weapons, and make it so you have to spend even more points to get the same effectiveness out of utility spells. Again, nothing else in the game works like this. You can accomplish anything in the game with a single proficiency (plus static modifiers if applicable), having one subsystem that requires you to have two or even three proficiencies just doesn't fit the design of the game.

Guess you have not been paying much attention to what I have been saying either.

Arcana would affect the damage and healing of spells, yes.  Nature and Technology is more like the skill part allowing you to affect multiple targets.  If you have Arcana and Nature at 1, you can attack one person dealing only 1 damage.  If your Arcana is 5 and Nature is 5, you can attack two targets dealing 5 damage each.  If your Arcana is 10 and your Nature is 1, you can attack only person dealing 10 damage.  Do you see what I am getting at?  When the spell sheet is created, they will tell you what has to be what in order what.  There is also the factor of casting the spell correctly.

3 hours ago, Lord Duvors said:

A magic user still has more options then a guy with just a gun and some potions. Magic users can teleport people, heal at range, summon allies, create illusions and so forth. And a magic user can still have a gun and some potions that are just as good as the other guy's. Ultimately the issue is that a magic user can do everything everyone else can and more. And they only way you've come up with to balance that is to increase the already painful skill tax even further.

Items can be added so ordinary players can do nearly the same things.  It is literally that easy.

3 hours ago, Lord Duvors said:

How is this any different from the current system?

That is sorta the point.  Keep it familiar but updated.

3 hours ago, Lord Duvors said:

How the hell is this a good thing? If I only want magic for one spell then why should I be forced to start with a spell I don't want and then spend extra in order to get the one I actually do? That just seems frustrating and unnecessary.

Did you seriously not read what I said?

Just to recap, I literally said that nearly verbatim.  If you are creating a character with the sole intent on being only a magic user, you should select Damage as your first before other spells.  If you design a character and want only one Spell Type and are not going to be magic-heavy, like healing, you can do exactly that.

3 hours ago, Lord Duvors said:

Meanwhile, at lower levels when Plasma Potions and Nanite Filters are generally more effective than their equivalent spells players don't have the money to make a healing build entirely reliant on those items viable.

Just like any other build it takes time to get there.  Besides, a healing build at the start may not even be effective at all.  How many times did we have to heal up on the test mission?  Not a lot.

[Duvors]

33 minutes ago, Goliath said:

Because you would be looking at a lot of new proficiencies just to categorize each type of magic spells.  All of that would be unnecessary and be way too overwhelming.

But the work of categorizing spells by proficiency has already been done, and considering there are only ten spells in the entire game it doesn't seem overwhelming at all. You seem to think that each proficiency is going to have new spells added to it over the course of the game, but frankly I don't see that happening. Or maybe you think that people plan to add a spell list for each proficiency and are fighting to stop that, but that's definitely never going to happen so I don't see why anyone would think that. Or maybe you think something else entirely? I don't know! I honestly can't tell what problem you're trying to solve with these suggested changes because so far nothing you've suggested removing has actually proved to be a problem.

 

48 minutes ago, Goliath said:

The whole point of investing into this is to become strong later, not initially.  That would be asinine.

And where have I suggested otherwise? I don't want spellcasters to immediately gain access to the most powerful magic in the game, what I want is for magic to have enough of an effect when you get it for it to feel fun and worthwhile.

 

53 minutes ago, Goliath said:

Because attack magic exists already and seems pointless to even invest in with the current system.  You might as well just attack with your basic weapon and do more damage with that.  So if you invest in one why would you want to invest in the other?

I admit that attacking and healing with spells feels bad at the moment, but that's partly due to all examples of play so far being at low levels. That being said it must be mentioned that spells do less damage then weapons overall.

However, another thing to keep in mind is that even if they don't do as much damage overall spells can still do things that weapons can't do by default, such as attack multiple targets or do damage over time (damage that completely bypasses any potential poison resistance I may add). And Healing Light and Purging Font can be used at range, whereas their equivalent items can't.

1 hour ago, Goliath said:

And non-magic players can do the exact same things but they would need specific items so what is your point?  Take your teammates into account.  Players will be bringing in items to do the same things as a magic user.  Having a magic guy on the team is not a requirement at all.

Okay, firstly you're assuming the existence of items that don't exist yet, and a lot of them. Secondly the items that do exist that do the same things as spells don't actually work the same way as said spells. Thirdly, what's stopping a magic user from just picking up said items and using them themselves? You haven't actually given non-magical characters anything they can do that spellcasters can't.

 

1 hour ago, Goliath said:

Arcana would affect the damage and healing of spells, yes.  Nature and Technology is more like the skill part allowing you to affect multiple targets.  If you have Arcana and Nature at 1, you can attack one person dealing only 1 damage.  If your Arcana is 5 and Nature is 5, you can attack two targets dealing 5 damage each.  If your Arcana is 10 and your Nature is 1, you can attack only person dealing 10 damage.  Do you see what I am getting at?  When the spell sheet is created, they will tell you what has to be what in order what.  There is also the factor of casting the spell correctly.

Okay, going back and looking at the thread I can only see one place where you vaguely alluded to what you're describing above. I did either miss it or forget about it though. Sorry

However, I have to point out that what you've outlined in your post is a demonstration of the exact thing I'm objecting to in the post you quote. To remind you:

 

5 hours ago, Lord Duvors said:

Under the current system six points is enough to make spells reasonably effective (this is still more than weapons and other proficiencies but that's beside the point). Whereas under yours that only applies to damage spells, which are directly competing with artillery weapons, and make it so you have to spend even more points to get the same effectiveness out of utility spells. Again, nothing else in the game works like this. You can accomplish anything in the game with a single proficiency (plus static modifiers if applicable), having one subsystem that requires you to have two or even three proficiencies just doesn't fit the design of the game.

I'll come back to this later, but for now I'm going to dissect the system you've outlined above.

As you've chosen a damage spell as your example, let us compare it to Elemental Evocation.

Firstly, you haven't given the damage of your hypothetical spell a type so I'm going to assume it's untyped. This is automatically better then the current spell for reasons that should be obvious.

Secondly, you've stated that a spellcaster with a ten in arcana can deal a maximum of ten damage to a single target, whereas Elemental Evocation needs to overcome a DC of one to accomplish the same thus lowering the total possible damage to nine. HOWEVER, you have also said in several places that spells have a chance to fail, since we can't apply verses-armor-plus-skill to all spells then spells in your system must have to beat a DC, thus rendering your statements regarding the maximum damage of spells incorrect. However, as you haven't supplied a DC for spells in your system I can't actually compare it to what we already have. Of course it could be that DC's in your system only apply to utility spells and attack spells use armor-plus-skill instead, but that seems needlessly complicated.

Thirdly, your suggestion fails to bring up the automatic successes a weapon adds to it's attacks. A person carrying a plus-one weapon and possessing a ten in it's corresponding proficiency has a potential total damage of eleven, and those automatic successes can go up to four.  Now your suggestion states that spells can do up to ten damage to a single target (which is close enough in damage to not be a big deal) but unfortunately we've already demonstrated that that can't be correct and have no basis for providing an accurate number.

Fourthly, if I understand your suggestion correctly then a character needs a Nature skill of five (that's fifteen points) in order to attack multiple targets with a single spell. This is on top of whatever points one has put into Arcana. In your second example you have five in both proficiencies (that comes to thirty points) allowing you to attack two targets. Now, in the current system spending twenty-eight points in Arcana would allow me to potentially deal six damage to one target, four to two targets, or two to three. Now again, since I don't have the DC's for your spell system I can't actually compare this to your numbers accurately.

Now I'm going to make the assumption that, in your system, increasing your nature skill to ten will allow you to hit three targets with a spell (this is a bit of a stretch but it seems consistent with what you've already suggested). Now that costs fifty-five points. However, none of this affects your damage so you also have to level up your Arcana to match. Now, if you upgrade your Arcana to ten (maxing out it's effectiveness) for another fifty-five points that brings to total points spent on magic to 110. At this point your character can do ten damage minus DC to three characters. Meanwhile in the other system, for fifty-five points total I can deal nine damage to one target, seven to two, five to three, and three to nine. You might be doing more damage than me depending on what DC you have to beat, and your untyped attacks will go through elemental armors that would severely reduce my damage, but I'm still capable of hitting more targets and none of it it cost me any more than it cost some guy with a gun to hit one target harder then a spell ever could in either system.

I suppose your way has it's advantages, but honestly I'd rather not face the doubled grind for a slight advantage over the previous system in some areas.

3 hours ago, Goliath said:

That is sorta the point.  Keep it familiar but updated.

Yes, but I don't think you've accomplished that. As if said before, nothing else in the game works they way your suggested system does. It so obviously different from the way everything else is designed (and interacts with everything else so weirdly) that I feel it would just come off as jarring and dissonant if it was inserted into the game.

 

3 hours ago, Goliath said:

Just to recap, I literally said that nearly verbatim.  If you are creating a character with the sole intent on being only a magic user, you should select Damage as your first before other spells.

But what if I don't want to blast fireballs at people? What if I want to use only support spells and fight using a staff? I'd rather not feel pressured by the game's design to have to use a specific spell when I don't want to even if I'm not explicitly required to in the rules.

Also, I apologize if I didn't understand you the first time you said this, but you weren't exactly clear and you made it seem that players would be required by the rules to take an attack spell before any others.

[Yzalirk]

17 hours ago, Lord Duvors said:

But the work of categorizing spells by proficiency has already been done, and considering there are only ten spells in the entire game it doesn't seem overwhelming at all. You seem to think that each proficiency is going to have new spells added to it over the course of the game, but frankly I don't see that happening. Or maybe you think that people plan to add a spell list for each proficiency and are fighting to stop that, but that's definitely never going to happen so I don't see why anyone would think that. Or maybe you think something else entirely? I don't know! I honestly can't tell what problem you're trying to solve with these suggested changes because so far nothing you've suggested removing has actually proved to be a problem.

I think I was referring to dividing certain Spells Types into more proficiencies that would become overwhelming, such as having Medicine become a requirement for healing spells and Athletics or something for teleportation spells.  Rather than having to invest in multiple proficiencies it would just be bogged down to two.

Think of it this way, each Spell Type has a Level ranging from 1 - 4.  In order to "level up" the Spell Type you must meet specific requirements, such as having Nature / Technology at 5 to become Level 2.

17 hours ago, Lord Duvors said:

And where have I suggested otherwise? I don't want spellcasters to immediately gain access to the most powerful magic in the game, what I want is for magic to have enough of an effect when you get it for it to feel fun and worthwhile.

And that can be achieved in due time with the updated system I am proposing.  Being able to teleport multiple targets in battle will become super chaotic and beneficial.  You just have to set that as your goal.

17 hours ago, Lord Duvors said:

I admit that attacking and healing with spells feels bad at the moment, but that's partly due to all examples of play so far being at low levels. That being said it must be mentioned that spells do less damage then weapons overall.

However, another thing to keep in mind is that even if they don't do as much damage overall spells can still do things that weapons can't do by default, such as attack multiple targets or do damage over time (damage that completely bypasses any potential poison resistance I may add). And Healing Light and Purging Font can be used at range, whereas their equivalent items can't.

That is the intention.  If magic damage can compete with other weapon damage, than everyone would be more inclined to favor magic as they can do a broad variety of other things.  Magic being weaker for damage is mostly for balancing.  Later on when you can attack multiple targets for the same amount of damage as others is just not very fair.

Yes but again being able to target multiple targets with your spells is something you have to work towards to because it is very handy.  Do keep in mind that items can be adjusted as well.  If you want to heal a person with an item but they are multiple squares away, you should be able to toss the item their way.  Bombs can be items that do AoE damage and can damage multiple people.  Or even work as a healing item like Bacta Bombs from Star Wars.

17 hours ago, Lord Duvors said:

Okay, firstly you're assuming the existence of items that don't exist yet, and a lot of them. Secondly the items that do exist that do the same things as spells don't actually work the same way as said spells. Thirdly, what's stopping a magic user from just picking up said items and using them themselves? You haven't actually given non-magical characters anything they can do that spellcasters can't.

Well so far Heroica 2.0 is in its infancy.  A lot of these items can come with the launch.  So far the basics seemed to have been added.

I think I have a solution for your concern - other proficiencies can affect items.  You gave an example of a healing build that does not use magic.  Perhaps Medicine can add to the use of items?  If your Medicine is 2, you are guaranteed to heal 2 point of health with healing items.  Whatever the roll is for healing is added to the 2 points.  To an extent using items will be better than their magic counterparts but you have to stay stocked up on these items.

17 hours ago, Lord Duvors said:

Firstly, you haven't given the damage of your hypothetical spell a type so I'm going to assume it's untyped. This is automatically better then the current spell for reasons that should be obvious.

Secondly, you've stated that a spellcaster with a ten in arcana can deal a maximum of ten damage to a single target, whereas Elemental Evocation needs to overcome a DC of one to accomplish the same thus lowering the total possible damage to nine. HOWEVER, you have also said in several places that spells have a chance to fail, since we can't apply verses-armor-plus-skill to all spells then spells in your system must have to beat a DC, thus rendering your statements regarding the maximum damage of spells incorrect. However, as you haven't supplied a DC for spells in your system I can't actually compare it to what we already have. Of course it could be that DC's in your system only apply to utility spells and attack spells use armor-plus-skill instead, but that seems needlessly complicated.

Thirdly, your suggestion fails to bring up the automatic successes a weapon adds to it's attacks. A person carrying a plus-one weapon and possessing a ten in it's corresponding proficiency has a potential total damage of eleven, and those automatic successes can go up to four.  Now your suggestion states that spells can do up to ten damage to a single target (which is close enough in damage to not be a big deal) but unfortunately we've already demonstrated that that can't be correct and have no basis for providing an accurate number.

Fourthly, if I understand your suggestion correctly then a character needs a Nature skill of five (that's fifteen points) in order to attack multiple targets with a single spell. This is on top of whatever points one has put into Arcana. In your second example you have five in both proficiencies (that comes to thirty points) allowing you to attack two targets. Now, in the current system spending twenty-eight points in Arcana would allow me to potentially deal six damage to one target, four to two targets, or two to three. Now again, since I don't have the DC's for your spell system I can't actually compare this to your numbers accurately.

Now I'm going to make the assumption that, in your system, increasing your nature skill to ten will allow you to hit three targets with a spell (this is a bit of a stretch but it seems consistent with what you've already suggested). Now that costs fifty-five points. However, none of this affects your damage so you also have to level up your Arcana to match. Now, if you upgrade your Arcana to ten (maxing out it's effectiveness) for another fifty-five points that brings to total points spent on magic to 110. At this point your character can do ten damage minus DC to three characters. Meanwhile in the other system, for fifty-five points total I can deal nine damage to one target, seven to two, five to three, and three to nine. You might be doing more damage than me depending on what DC you have to beat, and your untyped attacks will go through elemental armors that would severely reduce my damage, but I'm still capable of hitting more targets and none of it it cost me any more than it cost some guy with a gun to hit one target harder then a spell ever could in either system.

I suppose your way has it's advantages, but honestly I'd rather not face the doubled grind for a slight advantage over the previous system in some areas.

I will gladly type out a better layout for the system I have in mind if you would like to quell any concerns.  That is why I am giving my suggestions so we can all work towards a good system here.

Spell casting can be changed to act similarly to how Short Range and Long Range Weapons work.  You roll for the attack.  If the attack is successful, the damage is whatever your Arcana proficiency is.  I just do not have an idea how to determine what type of damage magic is.  The only things I can thing of is it is based on whatever you select, Nature or Technology.  Nature being Elemental and Technology being Energy, for example.  But arguably it would not make much sense.  Unless magic damage becomes its own separate exclusive thing?  Alternatively it just bypasses armor because it is inherently always weaker.  This is one of the biggest things that needs work in my suggestion.

There will be no weapons that adds +? to Arcana to further your damage.  Unless you can obtain armor that does as loot.  Again, it is mostly for balancing.  Your magic damage should never surpass or be on par with everyone else.

That was just an example but each Spell Type can have different requirements.  It is hard to give statistical examples as not everyone would distribute their points the same.  But going back to my example, yes, suppose my Arcana is 5 and my Nature is 5.  I deal 5 points of damage as indicated by Arcana.  I can attack an additional target dealing 5 points of damage to both.  I believe it would have been a total of 28 points to achieve that.  It is hard to compare that damage to someone not doing damage as there is no example but I would imagine that would be doing more damage to a single target.  But based on just points distributed to say Short Range Weapons, that player can achieve Short Ranged Weapons of 7 using 27 points leaving 1 extra.  Add a weapon to the mix like a Blaster Pistol (+3 Short Ranged Weapon, Energy) they would be dealing 10 points of damage assuming their target is not resistant to Energy damage.  They will be dealing double the damage but only to a single target.

The requirements to affect multiple targets can be adjusted but it is honestly very hard especially since there seems to be no cap on what your proficiencies can be upgraded to.  If there is no limit and the most expensive spell requires a Nature of 10, why invest in it even more?

17 hours ago, Lord Duvors said:

But what if I don't want to blast fireballs at people? What if I want to use only support spells and fight using a staff? I'd rather not feel pressured by the game's design to have to use a specific spell when I don't want to even if I'm not explicitly required to in the rules.

Also, I apologize if I didn't understand you the first time you said this, but you weren't exactly clear and you made it seem that players would be required by the rules to take an attack spell before any others.

I used fireballs as an example since fire magic comes to mind first when you want to attack.  You could just as easily be using ice magic or whatever you want, really, it is all up to you. 

If you want to use a staff and magic as support, you can do that if you choose.  You would have to invest in Melee and Nature.  Melee to boost your damage, obviously.  Nature so you can cast your spells to affect multiple targets if you wish to pursue that.  But if you choose to pursue magic that involves damage or healing you would want to invest in Arcana as well to boost the damage or healing.  If you want both you would have to invest in both beyond having them set at 1.

I hope I am being helpful with what I am suggesting.  I can put everything in a centralized post when I get the chance if that will help.

Edited March 13, 2020 by Goliath

[samurai-turtle]

I was wondering if their is any updates? Since it seems like everyone has time now...

Plus, I was wondering what might be the protocol for making up creatures and their profile. I might have some ideas for some general creatures that might be considered semi used in role playing games. 

[KotZ]

13 hours ago, samurai-turtle said:

I was wondering if their is any updates? Since it seems like everyone has time now...

Plus, I was wondering what might be the protocol for making up creatures and their profile. I might have some ideas for some general creatures that might be considered semi used in role playing games. 

I'd love to run/play a test quest in the next month if we get some interest. I think what we really need now after Endgame's quest is to isolate different parts that really need testing and hammer those out.

For example we do a quest that is basically just battles to text mechanics of movement, magic, weapons, etc. We do a quest that basically is only non-combat things regarding economy and worldbuilding. We do a quest with Heroes of varying levels to see how we can make the mechanics of the game stand better against powercreep.

[Yzalirk]

On 4/13/2020 at 2:04 AM, samurai-turtle said:

I was wondering if their is any updates? Since it seems like everyone has time now...

Plus, I was wondering what might be the protocol for making up creatures and their profile. I might have some ideas for some general creatures that might be considered semi used in role playing games. 

Same here.  I am surprised that there has been no new updates as of late considering the quarantines and all.

On 4/13/2020 at 3:30 PM, KotZ said:

I'd love to run/play a test quest in the next month if we get some interest. I think what we really need now after Endgame's quest is to isolate different parts that really need testing and hammer those out.

For example we do a quest that is basically just battles to text mechanics of movement, magic, weapons, etc. We do a quest that basically is only non-combat things regarding economy and worldbuilding. We do a quest with Heroes of varying levels to see how we can make the mechanics of the game stand better against powercreep.

I still am super interested in Heroica 2.0 and would not mind seeing another quest.  If we just want to test out certain mechanics and changes I am on board with just having Test Battles, for example, rather than full fledged quests that could take up to a month to complete.

I still stand by my idea for a magic overhaul.  I would love to try a dedicated magic user as it is something I have never attempted.  Normally I play the upfront brute warrior character and want to try something new.  We could try out a Test Battle and see how magic performs if you just want to use all magic.

[samurai-turtle]

On 4/13/2020 at 3:30 PM, KotZ said:

I'd love to run/play a test quest in the next month if we get some interest. I think what we really need now after Endgame's quest is to isolate different parts that really need testing and hammer those out.

For example we do a quest that is basically just battles to text mechanics of movement, magic, weapons, etc. We do a quest that basically is only non-combat things regarding economy and worldbuilding. We do a quest with Heroes of varying levels to see how we can make the mechanics of the game stand better against powercreep.

That should be easy enough to do, I did have an idea for another character or two. I guess just tell me how many extra points you would want to use, and if you need them to be a magic user or not. 

3 hours ago, Goliath said:

Same here.  I am surprised that there has been no new updates as of late considering the quarantines and all.

I still am super interested in Heroica 2.0 and would not mind seeing another quest.  If we just want to test out certain mechanics and changes I am on board with just having Test Battles, for example, rather than full fledged quests that could take up to a month to complete.

I still stand by my idea for a magic overhaul.  I would love to try a dedicated magic user as it is something I have never attempted.  Normally I play the upfront brute warrior character and want to try something new.  We could try out a Test Battle and see how magic performs if you just want to use all magic.

I would imagine we need a couple more players to get involved, not to mention any input from @Waterbrick Down & @Endgame . Plus I would think it would need to be a couple of battles to be sure and / or of any other type of bugs that might show up. But, if it had to be some sort of quest like thing I would imagine it could be like the old Fields of Glory (but maybe like in a Star Trek hollow deck). 

[Classic_Spaceman]

I apologise for disappearing - Covid-19 has been extremely disruptive! ?
 

On 4/13/2020 at 3:30 PM, KotZ said:

I'd love to run/play a test quest in the next month if we get some interest. I think what we really need now after Endgame's quest is to isolate different parts that really need testing and hammer those out.

For example we do a quest that is basically just battles to text mechanics of movement, magic, weapons, etc. We do a quest that basically is only non-combat things regarding economy and worldbuilding. We do a quest with Heroes of varying levels to see how we can make the mechanics of the game stand better against powercreep.

Agreed - I am also interested in taking part in more test missions! ?
Additionally, I have some ideas for improvements (such as Starting Class Kits, Abilities (rather than Spells), modifications to character-structure, etc), in addition to general game notes, that I will post once finished. 
 

[Lind Whisperer]

Hypothetical - Quest for a quest?

 I have two different homebrews I've been working on - would anybody be interested in some day in the future hosting one of them, in exchange for a quest hosted now?

[Waterbrick Down]

Hi Folks, so sorry about the hiatus. Life as always seemed to get in the way and couldn't quite get the gumption to keep at this at the time. Glad to see so many people in the other thread are still interested in a Heroica like game. I've been going through all the comments from the test quest Endgame ran and I'm glad to see so much to glean from. Basically it seems like folks like the following:
Proficiency system
Battle Grids
Some parts of combat

Things to fix:
Leveling up
Magic

Things to add:
Races
Classes

The races/classes I believe can easily be addressed through the use of a combination of traits (modifiers to existing stats) and new battle actions. The part I'm still scratching my head on is the magic system. Right now I'm toying with a system where in casting a spell involves making a magic proficiency check (Arcana/Nature/Religion/Occult) vs a set difficulty and simply spending a resource if the spell is successful similar to ether (Spell/Spirit points).

So where we once had:
Elemental Evocation (Does Elemental HP damage = # Arcana/Nature Successes over the DC - Enemies Elemental Armor)
Elemental Bolt DC 1, Hits 1 square
Elemental Ray DC 3, Hits 2 connected squares
Elemental Cone DC 5, Hits 3 adjacent squares
Elemental Blast DC 7, Hits 9 adjacent squares

Now becomes:
Elemental Evocation (Arcana/Nature vs Difficulty Check) if successful (Does Elemental HP damage = # Spell/Spirit Points Spent - Enemy's Elemental Armor)
Elemental Bolt DC 1, Hits 1 square
Elemental Ray DC 3, Hits 2 connected squares
Elemental Cone DC 5, Hits 3 adjacent squares
Elemental Blast DC 7, Hits 9 adjacent squares

Thoughts?

[KotZ]

1 hour ago, Waterbrick Down said:

Hi Folks, so sorry about the hiatus. Life as always seemed to get in the way and couldn't quite get the gumption to keep at this at the time. Glad to see so many people in the other thread are still interested in a Heroica like game. I've been going through all the comments from the test quest Endgame ran and I'm glad to see so much to glean from. Basically it seems like folks like the following:
Proficiency system
Battle Grids
Some parts of combat

Things to fix:
Leveling up
Magic

Things to add:
Races
Classes

The races/classes I believe can easily be addressed through the use of a combination of traits (modifiers to existing stats) and new battle actions. The part I'm still scratching my head on is the magic system. Right now I'm toying with a system where in casting a spell involves making a magic proficiency check (Arcana/Nature/Religion/Occult) vs a set difficulty and simply spending a resource if the spell is successful similar to ether (Spell/Spirit points).

So where we once had:
Elemental Evocation (Does Elemental HP damage = # Arcana/Nature Successes over the DC - Enemies Elemental Armor)
Elemental Bolt DC 1, Hits 1 square
Elemental Ray DC 3, Hits 2 connected squares
Elemental Cone DC 5, Hits 3 adjacent squares
Elemental Blast DC 7, Hits 9 adjacent squares

Now becomes:
Elemental Evocation (Arcana/Nature vs Difficulty Check) if successful (Does Elemental HP damage = # Spell/Spirit Points Spent - Enemy's Elemental Armor)
Elemental Bolt DC 1, Hits 1 square
Elemental Ray DC 3, Hits 2 connected squares
Elemental Cone DC 5, Hits 3 adjacent squares
Elemental Blast DC 7, Hits 9 adjacent squares

Thoughts?

I like it. It seems more in line with everything else being more based on difficulty checks. And this can easily work for the tech skill trees that have been mentioned too.

[Duvors]

On 9/2/2020 at 6:50 PM, Waterbrick Down said:

Thoughts?

I like it. To be honest this seems better than my idea of having DC0 spells and fits better with the overall design of the game.

On another note, while most of the lore should still be invented by the players over the course of the game I feel it would be good to have something basic established at the start. That way we can set the basic assumptions of the setting and give players something to build their backstories on. I have a number of ideas rattling around my head if anyone's interested.

[samurai-turtle]

On 9/2/2020 at 6:50 PM, Waterbrick Down said:

Hi Folks, so sorry about the hiatus. Life as always seemed to get in the way and couldn't quite get the gumption to keep at this at the time. Glad to see so many people in the other thread are still interested in a Heroica like game. I've been going through all the comments from the test quest Endgame ran and I'm glad to see so much to glean from. Basically it seems like folks like the following:
Proficiency system
Battle Grids
Some parts of combat

Things to fix:
Leveling up
Magic

Things to add:
Races
Classes

The races/classes I believe can easily be addressed through the use of a combination of traits (modifiers to existing stats) and new battle actions. The part I'm still scratching my head on is the magic system. Right now I'm toying with a system where in casting a spell involves making a magic proficiency check (Arcana/Nature/Religion/Occult) vs a set difficulty and simply spending a resource if the spell is successful similar to ether (Spell/Spirit points).

So where we once had:
Elemental Evocation (Does Elemental HP damage = # Arcana/Nature Successes over the DC - Enemies Elemental Armor)
Elemental Bolt DC 1, Hits 1 square
Elemental Ray DC 3, Hits 2 connected squares
Elemental Cone DC 5, Hits 3 adjacent squares
Elemental Blast DC 7, Hits 9 adjacent squares

Now becomes:
Elemental Evocation (Arcana/Nature vs Difficulty Check) if successful (Does Elemental HP damage = # Spell/Spirit Points Spent - Enemy's Elemental Armor)
Elemental Bolt DC 1, Hits 1 square
Elemental Ray DC 3, Hits 2 connected squares
Elemental Cone DC 5, Hits 3 adjacent squares
Elemental Blast DC 7, Hits 9 adjacent squares

Thoughts?

I think I am one of those people that need to do something to get a better understanding of it, plus it has been a while and I am rusty on everything. 

[samurai-turtle]

I heard of a thing called "Google Sheets / Microsoft Excel" can be used to make a grid map(s). Has anyone have experience with this stuff? And it sounds like the "Google Sheets" might be useful since anyone could edit it. From the pictures I seen it looks OK if you don't need something super fancy. 

[Waterbrick Down]

Yep, you can copy a spreadsheet from google sheets directly into the post editor, like this:

I have to figure out how to mess with the resolution though.

[Kintobor]

Guess who's back? Back again?

Kinto's back. Tell a friend.

I've been itching to get back into something on Eurobricks, and I'm willing to lend a bit of help. I'm fairly busy at the moment, but hopefully I can lend more help in the future.

[Duvors]

Nice to see you again.

[Waterbrick Down]

Slow and steady.