Kadabra

Because Fleyra is a really reliable source. Let's all trust the investigation results she gives without question, especially when they incriminate town leaders.

My money's on you being scum. Before you take Cover, I'll attack Corelin Moordog. convince me why I should change my action, dwarf. Or should I call you the mystery handcannoneer?

Who can confirm that you are a loyal hero?

We get more results by killing our suspicions than just goofing around in the hall. You should know that Brienne and I have a pretty good idea of who's scummy by now and need to test our list, you're in one of our private conversations.

Look, it's the conspiracy theorist. How 'bout that scummy Calico that you aren't even bringing up today? You too, buster.

I was, but some faun out me to sleep before I got the chance. Seriously, Scamander? I give Piro a venom, a ruby, an amethyst, two potions, and warm boots. Edit for boldness.

Is that why you're called Endgame? You end people's games? By killing them?

Total Party Kill, more commonly, but yeah. When did we have a TPK?

Totally agree. I'd love to see a character get set up as a boss and then be Level 1 with 2 HP and just get destroyed by a party or Level 20 something's. Not every person the Heroes meet has to be competent in a fight - heck, not even all the antagonists do. Some people survive off their brains and a Orc with a broadsword could kill them with a batted eyelash, and it'd be cool to see that reflected in game.

When I DM for my DnD group we almost universally use the Open Concept Barn. I personally think that it strikes a great balance between telling a story, as you know the general idea of where things are going and can plan ahead, and playing a game, as the player'snchoices often make things easier or harder on themselves and they can experience different things depending in what they do. We never fudge dice rolls, though. All dice are rolled in plain sight on the table to prevent fudging, as we feel that it takes the sense of risk out of the game. In Heroica, I think that Free Range Organic is a lot more feasible simply due to the number of players and the scale of the game. Failing a Quest can be accounted for by changes in the game world easily due to the large number of QMs working together on the game, with .sandy making sure things are moving in the proper direction. But the fact that the Wanted! Quests even exist is a testament to how Heroica works, as we could have been rid of two major recurring villains much earlier than we actually were. And a choice made by the players in Falling .stars directly affected the lives of two major characters. It's not often you see that in DnD, and I love it.

It's more like they prefer to face stronger enemies than have themselves become weaker, I think. If you made an enemy too OP they probably wouldn't mind you buffing them.

Bah, retcons.

Witch is quirky for a Rogue/Cleric, to me it seems like it should have somehow been Mage, as I just can't see many Clerics (with a strong Divine Magic theme) taking up a pointed hat or a monocle in order to cackle and cast spells for poison and hypnosis. Maybe that's why all three Witches are original Rogues. But the class itself is great, I love the mechanics of it and I think Sorcerer definitely fits the Mage/Rogue combo better than Witch does, so I'm happy where things are.

Brainstorm with a Witch looking over your shoulder and cackling with glee about your OP specials next time.

I'd say Exact Mirror, just because that's what the roll does and that's what the special is meant to do. I'm not trying to pick on you but this is probably a good learning experience for the next time you design a ridiculous multiphase boss monster so it's fun for everybody.

It's not really different at all: A critical does WPx2+Level damage. A Special Mirror does exactly what the enemy's 'special' says. Both are set in stone.

But you're literally changing a class's roll. That would be like if a player got a Critical Hit that did too much damage to your monster so you changed it to a Hit. Insta kill is an added effect, not part of the core roll itself.

Designing encounters so that players will shine in some battles and struggle in others is the same thing as not tailoring the battles to the party so that they struggle in battles that their character is not suited to and excel in those that they are suited to, just more artificial, in my opinion. Guess we'll just agree to disagree.

I'm not saying that enemies shouldn't grow stronger, but they should grow stronger according to their role and design, not in a way specifically designed to challenge a certain party. If you have a Level 20 Warden with 10SP fighting a Level 20 monster designed to be a 'juggernaut' type enemy who has tons of HP and will grind away at the party's health while they are all forced to attack it so it does quicker, then the Warden should be allowed to just chip away at the juggernaut from the back row, taking 0 damage and dealing little damage in return while the rest of the party takes on other enemies. The Warden gets to fill his role as a back row damage sponge and he gets to feel like, 'Wow! My character gets to really shine in this battle! I took out a powerful enemy all by myself!" If you make the monster pierce SP or cause Enraged, both a) it doesn't fit with the original character concept for that enemy and b) it cheapens the choice of class for the Warden, who doesn't get to plat his role in the party.

But if every battle you're in is tailored to you specifically, it takes the meaning out of personalizing your character. For example, if every enemy Docken faced could pierce SP or cause Enraged or something so as to provide a 'personalized challenge', then what was the point of him working away at accumulating SP and effects that allow him to become an ultimate back-row tank? It feels cheap to me.

I personally think that if you balance Quests to take into account certain classes then it defeats the point of having those classes. In my opinion, QMs should balance Quests for a party of 6 with one of each basic class, with difficulty based on the desired level range. Then if a player struggles or is 'OP', then it's because he's reaping the benefits or dealing with the disadvantages of his advanced/expert class choice. It makes the choice feel more meaningful, at least to me. I've never hosted, though, so I have no idea how well that would work, but I think the principle at least is sound.

Agreed. If you don't want the party to be able to do it to your monster, your monster shouldn't be able to do it to the party.

So it was denied, I knew it. Thanks for the clarification, that makes a lot of sense now that I look back at it. Shows why class design is best left to QMs, those things all look fine on paper to first glance to me.

I feel like it would be better as a bonus than a requirement in case players wished to go for a more serious take on a Swashbuckling figure, based more on snark, sarcasm, gallows humor, arrogant dickery, or what-have-you, but that could definitely work,

In that case, let me say it again: I expect a Quest from Rumble/WBD that offers it pronto. I'd love to see Swashbucklers running around and I'd love to make my second character (if I ever get that far ) one.