Next Logical Hero to be Added...

[LPhillips]

Lichking, that seems like a good idea. I'd like to propose two things to your model:
1) I think the purchase of spells should be within the scope of the current points system, rather than awarded at specific levels in addition to purchased attributes.
2) I would like the ability to upgrade spells' effects for a point cost as well.

Your idea of having a spell continuously active after purchase is far preferable to my suggestion of allowing players to have different spells active at different times. It still provides a semi-unpredictable element when facing an enemy magic user whom you haven't faced before, which I think is a great element for a hero. It simultaneously prevents fluidity of magical abilities from being a factor in balancing, so that the abilities don't have to be weak to compensate.

One thing bothers me, or two depending on how you look at it. Your proposed model (just spitballing as we are) starts the magician off as a useless hero (except for ruin exploration with ample escort) and ends up with putting him at the uncontested pinnacle of heroes at a relatively low level (11 or so). In my opinion, it would be preferable to level that curve somewhat. So he starts off weak, but not quite useless, and doesn't overpower others until a much higher level.

Finally, in keeping with theme and making him unique, I'd like to see all of his hero point purchases included within the "spell" genre, and prevent him from specializing in either leadership or chaos. To make him viable, at least start him at +1+1 leadership/chaos and force him to build from there. I'd call the ability "Manipulation", have it be his starting spell, and give it +1+1 per 15 points spent up to max +5+5. Then when he gains other spells like the Critical/Ambush spell, the negates, and so forth he won't be far superior to other heroes at mid levels. With several spells available for purchase, his power ceiling will be higher than other current heroes if anyone can level him up past 15 or so, but he won't be very powerful early on.

[LPhillips]

While I was hashing out my idea of a magician hero, it became the biggest textwall I've ever seen. Read at your own peril.


Spell ideas thus far:
1) Cumulative negates. I'm not on board yet with those; that sounds like a very iffy thing to fool around with. Negate limits are currently a big part of game balance.
2) Ambush and critical ability. We just make this a "spell" for magician, which must be purchased and can be upgraded like other heroes' ambush bonus, but obviously with higher ceiling than 10%.
3) Chaos/Leadership. I'm in favor of combining the two and making them the magician's starting spell. Gives it a unique flavor and prevents the magician from becoming a specialist in either. Needs to be capped fairly low, because magician needs to be unable to equal either of the other heroes in their specialized abilities.
4) Hit points. Magician isn't likely to be facing enemy units directly, so I think the spell needs to be applied to his accompanying army. Obviously HP boost is extremely powerful, so it needs to be very limited and/or very expensive. My proposal is, starting with the magician and moving toward the front line: "Gives one unit +1 additional HP", upgrade for "Gives two units +1 additional HP", up to 4 or 5 I guess. This kind of spell is tricky because the issue of hero combination and abuse needs to be carefully considered. Otherwise, it is a great fit because it encourages the Magician to take risks by reducing his army to, say, 4 units (to get the +hp boost on all of them) when attacking in order to take full advantage of the spell and not waste troops.
5) Undead Mastery (UL Boost). I think this will not see too much use as Ability Points are already abundant with few truly desirable choices. But that's no reason not to include it, especially if it boosts the Magician's UL ceiling up to 30 so he can compete with the Paladin. I'd propose 10 points if it's included (even 20+10 is a real stretch). It would be a sacrifice of 30 hero points or so to gain the ability to plunder those high-level ruins without having to level a Paly way up or acquire expensive UL boosters.
6) Group Move. It's a must. The difference between this and other heroes' group move is that the magician pays a considerable cost to acquire the spell, but less to upgrade it and with a higher ceiling (so he might spend a total of 50-60 points for +6 group move). Say, 30 for +2 and 10 for +2 after that up to +6? That's 50 points. Could make it 15 for 60 points total.
7) Summoner. Lichking suggests reducing cost of hero+allies. I like that, and for upgrades I suggest you get +1 on the roll to get a hero offer. Snotling needs to weigh in on that; the upgrade might not even be possible in the code.
8) Morale/Fear bonus. It would be neat to incorporate this. It would be less helpful early, given the overlap with basic support units, but very strong later because it would reduce the number of support units needed in a stack. Any objections to +2+1 Morale/Fear, upgradable?
9) Terrain negate/battlefield teleportation.

My modified proposal, borrowing heavily from Lichking's ideas:
15 strength, max 30
Move 16, max 20 (remember he gets strong group move)
UL 8(+2/point), max 16
Learning 100, cap at 120 (a superleveled magician would become incredibly powerful, so he needs a strong handicap)
Standard Ability Point options.
Everything else expressed in spells.
*Manipulation: Free, +1+1 Leadership/Chaos, 15 point upgrade for +1+1, cap level 5.
*Negate Heroism: 20 point cost, 2 hero negate, 5 point upgrade for +1, cap at level 5 (-6)
*Negate Aura: 30 points, 3 negate, 5 point upgrade for +1, cap at level 5 (-7)
*Magical Barrier: 20 points, +1HP to Magician (first unit in army), 15 point upgrade for +1HP on next unit, cap at level 4 or 5
*Enchanted Weapons: 20 points, +10% Ambush, 5 points for +5%, cap at level 3 (30%)
*Swift Transit: 30 points, +2 group move, 15 points for +2, cap at level 3 (+6)
*Summoner: 20 points, Ally/hero offer costs reduced by 30%, 10 points for +1 to dice for hero offer, cap at level ?
*Battlefield Transportation: 20 points, 5 terrain negate, 7 points for +5, cap at level 4 (-20)
*Undead Mastery: 30 points, +10 UL, no upgrades to this spell.

Let's say you can get a level 7 Mage. Probably, you max your free skill for 60 points by level 7, Manipulation. A Paladin is at 13 skill by that level, a DK is at 12. So Magician is behind at lvl 7 with a cumulative 10. Or maybe you spent 30 points on Undead Mastery and got some sweet cash and items, but let's stick to one example. So at 7 your free ability is maxed out, by 9 or 10 you can afford another. Paly/DK/Valk is maxing out, but Magician is just warming up. Realistically you won't pass 15 or so, therefor you must plan what you will take. 220 points left, you put 60 into Swift Transit for +6 group move. 30 for +2 is steep, but it evens out in the end. 160 points left, you have a fast-moving middle strength hero. If you went Ambush, you could hit with 26 move and assassinate an enemy stack from absurd range, then retreat to safety. Or if your enemy is employing spiders and griffins, or HC on desert, you might buy the Battlefield Transportation to negate terrain bonuses. But your enemy is holed up with masses of units, so you go with the HP boost to give your single stack some extra punch. 65 points left, you put the rest in Negate Aura (-7). 15 points left that you dump into +strength.
So your stack of Hero + 6 Giants (for simplicity) and one Dragon looks like this:
40/2 40/2 40/2 40/3 40/3 40/3 40/3 30/3.

An enemy level 15 DK with the same escort looks like this:
35/2 35/2 35/2 35/2 35/2 35/2 40/2 55/2

After modifications, the stacks are
22/2 22/2 22/2 22/3 22/3 22/3 22/3 12/3
vs
23/2 23/2 23/2 23/2 23/2 23/2 28/2 43/2

So, the Magician has just barely surpassed the strongest normal hero by around level 15. It takes him longer to get there, as he has low learning (120% cap), but by level 18 or 20 he's dominant in single-hero stacks. Other heroes can still match/beat his support attributes by packing in support units, but his strength is in being able to travel with less support units, packing in more combat units of his choice (green dragons anyone?)

Penny for your thoughts? It's possible with the growing list of spell possibilities that this needs to be divided into two heroes.

[LichKing]

My idea was about one-shot ability upgrades, not upgradeable. To reach a balance is obviously necessary, but it shouldn't become overcomplicated, and I think spells should be different from other hero abilities, that you can upgrade. I see them as powerful abilities that you could choose to give you a boost depending on what you need most in a certain phase of the game. Your opponents have dragons and you don't have devils? you could choose a negate aura boost. You don't have the money to buy a grand archon and need urgently some negate heroism? You could choose that. Your paladin has just been slain and you need some UL? You get that. The good thing about spells would be that their effect would be cumulative with what you have (group move, negate, stack ambush, except morale/fear).

I think it would be rather difficult to make him a super-hero, because:

starting at 0 leadership/chaos he would be weak at first and it would be difficult to make him gain levels
base and max STR would be low

My revised version:

STR 15 (max 35)
Move 20 (max 24) *
UL 8 (+2/p, max 18) (so he can reach 33 with UL boost)
Learning 120 (+20/pt, max 200) **
Leadership 0 (+3/20pts, max 12)
Chaos 0 (+3/20 pts, max 12)
Group move 0 (+1/10pts, max +4)

Spells (1 new spell at level 5, 8, 11, 14, 17):

"Exorcist" (negate aura +5, cumulative with devils/unicorns)
"Enthraller" (negate heroism +8, cumulative with Archons)
"Necromancer" (UL +15, Chaos +3)
"Summoner" (hero+allies offers cost 50%, or 70% with increased chance)
"Enchanter" (effect of items carried by the wizard is doubled)
"Champion" (+10 STR, +3 HP, +3 Leadership, cumulative with items) ***
"Illusionist" (negate terrain +10, stack moves on all terrains at cost 2, stack walks on water)
"Etherealness" (+6 group move, cumulative with skill/items/units) ****
"Aura" (+5 Morale and +5 Fear, not cumulative with units, but cumulative with leadership/chaos)
"Breach" (+10 siege (cumulative with units), +5 attack Leadership)
"Assassinate" (100% critical, +15 stack ambush, cumulative with ghosts)

* individual and stack movement are rather independent for him, since the wizard alone is a weak unit, it would be useful to make him flee faster or for ruin hunting. It is also coherent with wizards (the unit) being fast.

** A wizard is a smart guy, isn't he? It would take forever to reach higher levels and spells without this, considering how weak he would be at first.

*** 35 base max +10 to get 45, 5 HP + 2 from item (there's an armor that gives +2 (or +3?) HP) for 7 HP max

**** this would be cumulative with the wizards attributes (skill/items), and with units (green dragon/elephant), but skill/item bonus shouldn't be cumulative with units. Example:

Wiz +2 (skill) +2 (item) +4 (green dragon) = +4 total (skill/items not cumulative with units)
Wiz +4 (spell) + 4 (dragon) = +8 total (cumulative with units)
Wiz +2 (skill) +2 (item) +6 (spell) = +10 total (cumulative with skill/items)
Wiz +2 (skill) +2 (item) +6 (spell) +4 (green dragon) = still +10 total (spell is cumulative, but skill/items aren't cumulative with units)

[KGB]

My Comments:

1) Level 5+ heroes are pretty rare. Your initial hero probably makes it and maybe your second. But unless you are playing a 1v1 on a large map with lots of cities, no other heroes do. So a hero that is essentially useless until L5 (when he gets his first spell) is going to make him very unusable.

2) +3 HP is a bit over the top (giving him 5). If any heroes deserve more HP it's fighters, not spell casters. The item that gives +2 already makes your hero a killer. +1 HP max especially since I believe those extra HP count in ruin searching.

3) If you are going to do a spell caster I think all the secondary points that other heroes get (the ones used for UL and the like) should instead be used to acquire a spell. In other words the spell caster should get none of the options to upgrade UL (and other things on that menu) and instead only be able to use his points for spells (some of which would cost only 1, some 2, some 3, some 4 or even more etc depending on the spell power). Then instead of waiting for a specific level you just need to accumulate points for the spell(s) of choice.

Lastly, this type of flexible hero is something I've asked for before but was rejected as too complicated (although it wasn't in DLR where it worked just fine and made it so you were never sure exactly how your opponent developed his heroes). In truth *ALL* heroes should have multiple build paths costing varying amounts depending on their aptitude for that skill so that you could get some Chaos for your Paladin/Valkrie or some Leadership for your DK. Now with the addition of some of these new abilities on this spell caster, the other heroes should be able to acquire those skills too for the right amount of points (again based on their aptitude for it with the option to never acquire certain skills if they made no sense). Right now the heroes are all boring since there is only 1 legitimate option for them to upgrade and it's easily countered by Archons.

KGB

[LichKing]

1) Level 5+ heroes are pretty rare.

In FFA they aren't.

+1 HP max especially since I believe those extra HP count in ruin searching.

If they count in ruins you're right, but I'm not sure they do. I don't see anything bad in giving a wizard some HPs if they choose a spell that confers them. They would still lack high leadership/chaos to be as effective in combat as other heroes (at least initially).

3) If you are going to do a spell caster I think all the secondary points that other heroes get (the ones used for UL and the like) should instead be used to acquire a spell.

This would be more or less the way LPhillips intended it. I'd prefer that standard abilities (learning etc) were available to all, and spells being something different available only to wizards. You could gain points to distribute as you suggest, making spells similar to other hero abilities. This would have the advantage that spells would have different costs and could have different power, you wouldn't need to balance their power since you could make one more expensive than the other. I proposed the other systems because it's simpler and would make spells more unique, also in the way they're chosen. Moreover, you wouldn't have leftover points as it can happen with skills. I don't have anything against this system, anyway. I wouldn't like, btw, that standard abilities were precluded to wizards, I don't see a reason why they should.

Lastly, this type of flexible hero is something I've asked for before but was rejected as too complicated (although it wasn't in DLR where it worked just fine and made it so you were never sure exactly how your opponent developed his heroes). In truth *ALL* heroes should have multiple build paths costing varying amounts depending on their aptitude for that skill so that you could get some Chaos for your Paladin/Valkrie or some Leadership for your DK. Now with the addition of some of these new abilities on this spell caster, the other heroes should be able to acquire those skills too for the right amount of points (again based on their aptitude for it with the option to never acquire certain skills if they made no sense). Right now the heroes are all boring since there is only 1 legitimate option for them to upgrade and it's easily countered by Archons.

You can have all this also now, if you mix heroes in stacks. And you can hide them behind other units if you don't want that your enemy knows what he's facing. Multiple build paths is how heroes were in beta3, and they weren't more diversified than now, on the contrary you could have paladins and DK with more or less the same stats. Maybe something (like the choice for more HPs) could be added and made easier to get for paladins/DK rather than for wiz/valk/ranger/thief, like movement now is easier to get for valks. I like how heroes are setup now, that is how heroes are forced to be different. Besides, with items you can give leadership to the DK and chaos to paladin, so also now it is possible. Even if you had chaos/leadership available for all heroes (with different progression costs), you would tend to specialize heroes as now, I think. Maybe you would give paladin some chaos if you really have a lot of points to spare, and some leadership to DK, but mostly you would stick with what is more convenient for them to get. If you had a thief with cheap stack ambush, would you waste points for it on other heroes? Again, items can help giving skills to heroes they're not entitled to.

[KGB]

LichKing,

In FFA they aren't.

If they count in ruins you're right, but I'm not sure they do. I don't see anything bad in giving a wizard some HPs if they choose a spell that confers them. They would still lack high leadership/chaos to be as effective in combat as other heroes (at least initially).

It depends on what you consider rare. But currently it's almost impossible to get more than 6 heroes since the new system of hero offers prevents that (costs ever more gold to get each succeeding hero). I play FFA's as well and for me I find that if I get 4-5 heroes, maybe 2 of them reach L5 plus simply because unless the map has a TON of gold you don't get that 3rd or 4th hero until most of the neutrals are already captured/ruins explored.

This would be more or less the way LPhillips intended it. I'd prefer that standard abilities (learning etc) were available to all, and spells being something different available only to wizards. You could gain points to distribute as you suggest, making spells similar to other hero abilities. This would have the advantage that spells would have different costs and could have different power, you wouldn't need to balance their power since you could make one more expensive than the other. I proposed the other systems because it's simpler and would make spells more unique, also in the way they're chosen. Moreover, you wouldn't have leftover points as it can happen with skills. I don't have anything against this system, anyway. I wouldn't like, btw, that standard abilities were precluded to wizards, I don't see a reason why they should.

My thought here is that since Spellcasters get access to an entire new menu (spells) they should have to give up something in return. They can just start with a base 120% learning and a Wizard could start with 10UL and have a simple spell (1 pt) that gives +10 UL for looting L2 ruins and another simple spell (1 pt) that gives +5 GROUP UL (for 2 points Wizard could reach 25 or for 1 pt add +5 to everyone including your Pallys). Learning and UL are really the only things they are seriously giving up since all the other skills either don't make sense or are already available in a spell anyway.

You can have all this also now, if you mix heroes in stacks. And you can hide them behind other units if you don't want that your enemy knows what he's facing. Multiple build paths is how heroes were in beta3, and they weren't more diversified than now, on the contrary you could have paladins and DK with more or less the same stats. Maybe something (like the choice for more HPs) could be added and made easier to get for paladins/DK rather than for wiz/valk/ranger/thief, like movement now is easier to get for valks. I like how heroes are setup now, that is how heroes are forced to be different. Besides, with items you can give leadership to the DK and chaos to paladin, so also now it is possible. Even if you had chaos/leadership available for all heroes (with different progression costs), you would tend to specialize heroes as now, I think. Maybe you would give paladin some chaos if you really have a lot of points to spare, and some leadership to DK, but mostly you would stick with what is more convenient for them to get. If you had a thief with cheap stack ambush, would you waste points for it on other heroes? Again, items can help giving skills to heroes they're not entitled to.

I don't want all heroes to get access to all group stats. Just ones that make sense. For example
Paladin: Leadership/Morale +4 for 20 points, pick one or the other at L1 to start with +4.
DK: Chaos/Fear +4 for 20 points (should be +4 not +3). Again, pick one at L1.

The reason for this is often I find I want a 2nd paladin because I want to get ruins in another direction. But later in the game if I want to group them I get nothing from it. But now I could take Morale on 1 and Leadership on another. Or if my opponent is making Archons but not Devils, I can select Morale/Fear on my heroes.

You can of course still build the other skill (so if you took Morale for your Pally at L1, you could take +4 Leader at L3 or +4 more Morale), just that you select which initial one gets the bonus at L1.

So yeah, mostly you will stick with what you started out in at L1 but maybe if you see your opponent has something you can switch to the other. Or mid/late game you can avoid Devils/Archons/Unicorns as needed.

It would also be nice if the *only* things under Hero Skills were group related (no individual strength, move) since those are the only ones people send points on anyway. Then in the Abilities tab would be where you get individual strength, move, hits etc (the Wizard gives this tab up for his spells, some of which have these and others which have more/unique things). This way a DK/Valkrie who doesn't specialize in UL can spend those points on useful things like Strength/Move/Hits or your 2nd/3rd Paladin who isn't ruin exploring can also do that too.

KGB

[LichKing]

I see all this unnecessary complicated. Morale on heroes? That defies the whole leadership/morale concept (morale on units, leadership on heroes). I proposed a spell for wizards that gives morale/fear because.. it's a spell.

You say individual skills aren't used much on heroes. Personally I raise them first, not leadership/chaos (sometimes chaos first, but almost never leadership). For 20 points you can have +20 on your hero (making him more difficult to kill) or +3 on the stack. What's better? Unless you have always a full stack, +20 STR is much better, imo. Same for moves, the paladin doesn't need big company for ruins.

Even if you could choose morale/fear on heroes, when would you choose them? Units that give morale/fear are plentiful. A decent stack cannot exist without them. So why would you sacrifice leadership for something that wouldn't stack with units' morale? In the extreme case when your opponent has archons and not devils, and you don't have morale units (unbelievable), to get a decent morale/fear on your hero you would have to give him points in that from the start, it's not a thing you plan last minute. Yes you could give morale/fear to one of your heroes from the beginning, but why would you do that if there are units that give those skills. There aren't units with chaos/leadership. And please don't tell me that they should be introduced, then where would be the difference between heroes and normal units, if all units can give all kinds of bonuses. At that point maybe you should buy yourself a Pegasus if you want morale, that would be more convenient, and less complicated than stuffing the hero screen with skills that aren't meant for heroes.

[KGB]

LichKing,

What do you mean unnecessarily complicated? You find it's too hard to chose between 2 choices? I don't believe that for a second. And what's wrong with Morale/Fear on heroes? DLR allowed all 6 bonus's on various heroes and the game didn't suffer. In fact the DLR Paladin specialized in Morale which makes perfect sense. You also seem OK with Siege on a Thief.

If you raise individual skills first, God Bless You. I don't and I can't imagine many others do either unless they are desperate. If my hero is ever fighting it's a mistake on my part or bad luck that caused all his armies to die. Personally I find that DK/Valkrie points are 100% wasted since they don't bother with UL and Pathfinding isn't that important. I do take some learning but I would *love* to be able to convert those points into individual strength/hits/move.

As for choosing Morale/Fear, I'd do it often actually. The best Fear unit right now is limited to 5. So at L3 a DK with Fear already pays for itself. Even a L3 Pally is better than a Pegsus. Many times I reach L3 long before I can afford a Pegasus production and then I'd have the added ability to keep going up and past a Red Dragon meaning I might not need that either. Many smaller maps don't have lots of money/cities that allow for buying tons of Morale/Fear units. Plus right now even the Blue Archon renders any hero under L5 obsolete. They provide *nothing* to you and those Archons come easy (hero offers, cheap to buy) and fast (3 turns), never mind the Red one rendering L10+ heroes obsolete. So heroes need a way to escape the Archon and the only way to do that is provide other paths for them to go down (hence Siege on a Thief. The game still needs other skills like Engineering-cheaper production costs/city wall upgrades , maybe a Fortify skill that provides a wall like bonus etc).

Unless heroes get another path, I would *never* want a Spellcaster as described here to be in the game. It would just *always* be the way to go. So versatile, able to escape the Archon and provide tons of cool features at high levels that other heroes can't (all those nice negates) since 1 Archon = bye-bye hero. Or put it another way, the spellcaster as you/LPhillips described could be the *only* hero in the game and I'd be overjoyed because it's so versatile and the Paladin/DK/Valkrie/Thief etc could be scrapped.

KGB

[LichKing]

You're right about archons. But you know what I think it's the main problem? I think it's not heroes, it's that you can actually buy archon production, they cost not so much and are ready in 3 turns. These problems can (and probably will) be solved only with restrictions to city production, as it was in Warlords 2 and as it should be. Then you'll have to pray for an hero offer with archons to get one, or conquer one rare town that allows them. Right now you can buy and build all you need, archons, devils, dragons, whatever. Also a hero with morale couldn't really shine, since there are almost invariably devils around. When there'll be restrictions to city production, heroes will be stronger again, also without morale.

[Moonknight]

If you raise individual skills first, God Bless You. I don't and I can't imagine many others do either unless they are desperate. If my hero is ever fighting it's a mistake on my part or bad luck that caused all his armies to die. Personally I find that DK/Valkrie points are 100% wasted since they don't bother with UL and Pathfinding isn't that important. I do take some learning but I would *love* to be able to convert those points into individual strength/hits/move.

I agree 100%...with the way heroes are today, I would rather have leadership & chaos get automatically upgraded at each odd level, and all other abilities become skills (with some costing more than 1 point). HP could cost 6 skill points.