RE: Healing


	Home \| Login \| Register \| Help \| Play

RE: Healing

Logged in as: Guest

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [AdventureQuest] >> AdventureQuest General Discussion >> RE: Healing

Page 6 of 6

Forum Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

4/2/2024 18:40:22

Dardiel
Member

With the attention brought back to Lorekeeper's musing about an END-specific button, I have yet another suggestion that could give END an identity that promotes defensive play. I'll try to format it nicely to go over the line of thinking I had:

Part The First: Raw HP
Enemies are designed around the player having 0 END, which basically means that they're designed around extra HP being pointless - if normal gameplay means you aren't losing a regular HP bar, how would you ever dip into an expanded HP bar unless you're doing something reckless or the enemy itself is just too strong? If endurance means lasting for a long time then it's almost the opposite goal being accomplished; endurance becomes the stat for hyper-offensive strategies that use the extra health as the way to not worry about using any defensive measures.

Part B: Some Symmetry
A while back there was a big discussion about Ranger damage identity and the easy chain of logic was "well Warriors are consistent, and Mages are a downward slope - why not give Rangers a unique line?" which led to damage ramp (not necessarily accepted, due to various factors) and then led to the current accuracy-based squiggly line.
So now we're looking at the Endurance identity, which is itself a stat in a weird spot in between two other stats. So, following the same logic as previous - Charisma is consistent, with pets providing the same value every turn (guests are the equivalent of the warrior's skills), while Luck is bursty, with lucky strikes and Initiative. That leaves Endurance to find a line that's neither flat nor erratic+downward... And if the stat in question is intended to reward "enduring" (a term which is defined by patience and lasting for a while), it sounds to me like the idea line shape would be an upward ramp.
The speedbump is that I believe Endurance needs an output, or some sort of payoff to what you're doing - boosted healing is an option although I already worry that it's too easy to outheal enemies, and I think having more HP/blocking/eleshield doesn't necessarily make you feel strong so much as it just enables you to safely use more aggressive gear that makes you feel strong due to your other stats.

Part 3: The Proposal (not the movie)
The mechanic, without a designated "Endure" button: The player has an empty endurance meter. They use a heal skill, which would restore 400 HP - instead, their HP recovers by 200 and the endurance meter fills by 200. Their pet then performs a heal that would restore 80 HP, that's also half funneled into the meter to total 240. At the end of the turn, the meter is not empty so it becomes locked for 2 turns; additional heals are not redirected into the meter during that time. For the next 2 turns, incoming damage is dealt to the meter instead of the player (same as a barrier). At the start of the player's 3rd turn, if there's any meter left, it empties out and becomes a damage boost for the player with power equal to the amount of meter that was remaining. The meter is still locked during this turn, so no boosted heals to make the meter even larger.

The mechanic, using a designated "Endure" button: The player has an empty endurance meter. They press the Endure button, which performs a weaker attack but fills the endurance meter and locks the Endure button for 3 turns. For the next 2 turns, incoming damage is redirected to the endurance meter before it reduces player HP. If the player still has meter remaining on turn 3, that amount is converted to a damage boost for the turn.

Mechanic Explanation: The endurance meter starts the battle at 0 and is unlocked - half of any heals are diverted into filling the meter, which triggers it to lock at the end of the player's turn (this can mean that heals done during the enemy's turn add to the meter, then the player can contribute before it locks). Any damage while the meter is above 0 will reduce the meter before carrying over, even if the meter is unlocked. Once the meter locks it stays locked for the next 3 player turns not counting celerity turns; on that 3rd turn, any remaining meter is consumed and converted to a player-side effectiveness boost. The meter unlocks at the end of that turn (such that the effectiveness boost can't be channeled back into making a larger meter) to repeat the cycle. If the meter is emptied by damage before it's emptied by the player, it unlocks immediately. If the Endure button concept is used, instead of the heal redirection it's just a matter of pressing the button to fill the meter by a given amount.

Logic + Options: The core motivation here is that this is a mechanic that clearly promotes playing defensive without any real way to accidentally promote burst-oriented hyper offense strategies, while still allowing the player to experience a clear and interactive reward for playing defensive. The curve is largely a spiked line with turns of safety/defense followed by very powerful turns with high output. I believe the main options around the implementation would be:
- Instead of triggering from heals, we can do Lorekeeper's proposal of an Endurance button; you skip your turn to fill the meter, instead of having it filled by heals. The button would be locked out for 3 turns after you use it, the same way that heals stop funneling into the meter for 3 turns.
- If the idea remains to funnel healing, the amount funneled can scale with Endurance - eg the amount Funneled is just END/500, a linear scale from 0-50% based on investment.
- The meter itself could have some amount of damage reduction similar to the Necromancer barrier, such that even generating the meter is an output of having Endurance and you aren't just treading water if you fill the meter and it breaks (this is particularly relevant if it's funneling heals into the meter instead of funneling player power into it).
- The value of the output could be given an additional multiplier to encourage taking full advantage of the mechanic and to further differentiate Endurance's identity via a ramping spiked line; for example if the power boost is multiplied by something like:
---- 1/[TurnCount]^0.9 to reward surviving for a long time
---- [CurrentHP]/([MaxHPAt0END]*[TurnCount]^0.9) to reward players for keeping themselves healthy
---- 1/[PreviousSuccesses]^0.9 to reward the player for consistently gaining the boost

Conclusion
I personally prefer the idea of having a button that enables this "defensive stance" rather than having heals funnel into it (I gave the heal option more attention only because it'd be more intricate to explain) if it's feasible to introduce the button, but with either implementation I think it gives Endurance a fun "setup and payoff" system that could then be supplemented with its own items (such as gear that has effects kicking in while you have some meter, or that get a bonus when you convert the meter into power) and all in a way that lets the stat be clearly defensive without promoting reckless playstyles or stall-based "become immortal then figure out what to do in between heal loop" styles.

< Message edited by Dardiel -- 4/2/2024 20:48:51 >

Post #: 126

4/2/2024 18:43:50

Ogma
Member

Besides stepping on established gameplay (no doubt some money/ztoken went to acquiring items that are considered OP, I'm in this position), game design wise I don't see the issue of making END maintstat for healing (maybe SP being an exception to this?). STR/DEX/INT gives you your general main damage of choice, leaving you with 2 out of 3 support stats to choose. CHA is utterly versatile and probably should follow the adage of "Jack of all trades, master of none". CHA can give you damage, heal, inflict various status. END and LUK are more restricted in the bonus they give. The latter being more offensive side with Lucky strike and helping inflicting status. END should be thematically more on the defensive side, and healing certainly fits the bill (maybe it can even mirror LUK and have instead Lucky Heal), and besides that, status resistance.

If you value healing that much, maybe it's maintstat/CHA/END the build you'd go for, and your gameplay will be turtling. mantstat/CHA/LUK would be akin to glass cannon, rationally you can't be good defensively, meaning you can't really have (direct) defensive tools like healing. Your best bet is through status infliction like Afraid/Paralyze/Choke/Panic and LUK does give you an edge to status infliction. Though Bosses usually are immune to Afraid type of status, and resistant to everything else. Either way, it is reasonable to me can't be too good at being either offensively and defensively on top of being versatile, if you want an offensive CHA user you'd pair CHA with LUK, if you want a defensive CHA user you'd pair CHA with END.

Game design wise this is sounds to me. And I reckon this should be quickly addressed so staff can get a sturdy model going and produce content "more quickly" (?). At least update old items to new standard.

Also, how does staff feel about a scenario where player is able to keep HP/MP/SP healed through combination of items and multiple turns of setting this healing loop? Does staff want to abolish such scenario?

AQ	Post #: 127

4/2/2024 18:46:24

Sapphire
Member

quote:

If you value healing that much, maybe it's maintstat/CHA/END the build you'd go for, and your gameplay will be turtling. mantstat/CHA/LUK would be akin to glass cannon, rationally you can't be good defensively, meaning you can't really have (direct) defensive tools like healing. Your best bet is through status infliction like Afraid/Paralyze/Choke/Panic and LUK does give you an edge to status infliction. Though Bosses usually are immune to Afraid type of status, and resistant to everything else. Either way, it is reasonable to me can't be too good at being either offensively and defensively on top of being versatile, if you want an offensive CHA user you'd pair CHA with LUK, if you want a defensive CHA user you'd pair CHA with END

Actually, CHA/END/LUK build would gain a massive buff with these proposals. THAT's the build that would benefit most. And then we'd be seeing a snowball's reflexive change to other aspects to not ensure this ostracized build go the way of the dinosaur. Anyway, moving on.

Just going to throw this out there.

I know there's 2 HP standards. There's assumed incoming damage, and HP cost as it relates to 100% melee. It does in fact make sense to me to try and unify this. Having two standards is odd.

But the answer isn't to nerf healing to adhere to some number, whether it be unified or not. The answer is to buff monsters. "Monsters hit like a wet noodle" was recently used elsewhere, and many players have long contended that monsters seem weak.

Look, the Dex decoupling was honestly a major, major power boost to players. The things Dex did was completely removed for everyone, then reformulated to create a brand new Archtype. This means that Main-Stats gained a lot of power. Players gained BTH, blocking (from Dex and Luck's decoupling of standard assumptions) , and they all received 15% melee style bonuses...and it's decoupling freed up 250 stat points since BTH was no longer tied to Dex universally.

This was a massive bump in player power.

Not only was END not assumed, but most non beast builds who don't wish to hybridize simply trained END. In fact, there are likely more players who trained END now than pre-stat revamp. That's probably not out of sheer attractiveness, but the combination of main stat + END now = to main-stat (str/int)+dex+END pre-stat revamp.

In addition to this, monsters essentially do nothing once the battle begins with dexterity unless the attack is ranged. They don't get any style bonuses that players get.

I know for a fact any draconian nerfs to HP's, assumed HP's, and heals will create a massive D5 Avalanche of adjustments that will never end. And that doesn't even begin to mention the backlash that will result from altering items, and the draconian altering of END. Players will hate their CHA and their END being messed with either via the stat itself or items that use them.

If you nerf healing/hp's, you're going to have to re-evaluate panic, choke, eleshield, and maybe other things like defboost and maybe even stuns... If you left monster debuffs alone but severely nerfed HP's and healing, then debuffs will be even more preferred. Not needing to heal, when the heal is utter manure, will be much more preferred.

Instead of creating a massive snowball of endless issues that will need addressing, END should not be "the healing stat" but remain the durability stat, where a healing boost is apart of that equation. END does lack luster, and I'm on board with lowering top end HP's and replacing that with some things. But I also do not think this amount should be anywhere near as drastic as what's being cooked. Those who like END will HATE this.

Monsters simply need buffed, probably need style bonuses (maybe even beginning at 160 stat, too, or maybe even higher to make this more of an end-game thing), and dexterity needs something specific to monsters. I think the damage identity's need implemented for monsters, and all of the style bonuses exactly as the players received them.

I saw a comment that potions cannot be tied to a stat. Thats fair. But that doesn't mean the idea where I proposed eating a potion gives a barrier that scales with END can't be done. We have a few items that utilize potions. This could be on a shield, or a misc, or an armor.

Another idea for END item support (because I think this issue honestly is 40% item support, 40% monster power, and 20% everything else lumped in) is a Heal imbue quick cast skill, that scales with END, and you get full heal at 250 END and hits/attempts inside the imbue formula. This would mean you could attach a heal to essentially any weapon-based attack.

HP heal imbue can be paid for via damage. MP or SP. MP heal imbue could be paid for via HP or damage or Sp. SP heal imbue could be paid for via damage or HP or MP. It just depends on which Archtypes the imbue is catered to. This would honestly be a great way to incorporate heals into the player attack.

Anyway, no need for drastic, wild suggestions to an issue that isn't as big as some may make it out to be. Ultimately, mathematically balancing a bad idea doesn't make it good.

< Message edited by Sapphire -- 4/2/2024 18:57:02 >

Post #: 128

4/2/2024 23:46:15

Aura Knight
Member

For healing to matter enough for people to want to invest in the endurance stat consideration for monster damage buffs must come into the discussion. As it stands the idea put forth here will do nothing to incentivize use of the proposed stat which is set to benefit. If you want a stat to be used make it offer something worthwhile. And no a monopoly over every source of resource gain is not good enough.

AQW

Post #: 129

4/3/2024 6:23:23

CH4OT1C!
Member

quote:

I know there's 2 HP standards. There's assumed incoming damage, and HP cost as it relates to 100% melee. It does in fact make sense to me to try and unify this. Having two standards is odd.

But the answer isn't to nerf healing to adhere to some number, whether it be unified or not. The answer is to buff monsters. "Monsters hit like a wet noodle" was recently used elsewhere, and many players have long contended that monsters seem weak.

To align the two HP costs would require the single biggest nerf in AQ's history. There are two ways to achieve it:
1) We multiply base player HP and monster damage upwards. Again, this is dependent on the assumed cost, but at best it would be *(348/151) [new player HP @0END = 6817, x2.3 increase], or more realistically it would be *(404/105) since this accounts for actual player and monster damage [new player HP @0END = 11,381, x3.85 increase].
2) We lower base monster HP and all player damage (Pet + Guest + healing attacks included) by the inverse of these ratios (*0.43 to *0.26 damage depending on the cost used).

I did notice someone elsewhere brought up the experimental thread where a few of us discussed hypothetical changes to the player turn model. This is something that could be used in scenario 1 above. We could cut maximum player HP back down to between 3409 and 5691. However, it wouldn't remotely solve your problem. You'd still have to multiply monster damage by the original amount, it's just that you'd have less HP with which to tank the new attacks.

If you are worried about my suggestion making healing items only half as efficient as they are now, the best case scenario for unifying HP costs would be reducing their efficiency to, at best, 43% of their current power. If you want to avoid a draconian nerf, this idea is considerably more severe than anything I have suggested thus far. This would not change even if you employed a hybrid of the two approaches above. You would still reduce healing to no more than 43% of current efficiency.

< Message edited by CH4OT1C! -- 4/3/2024 9:58:48 >

AQ	Post #: 130

4/3/2024 10:19:47

Aura Knight
Member

If healing is to be made worse for us is there support to an idea where it wouldn't take up a turn? We could see reduced output for turns where we first heal. Raising our hp when the initial concern is we have too much of it feels like a move in the opposite direction. Monster damage shouldn't go up so much that we need to almost 3x hp at 0. Cutting max hp close to 4k and adding between 10 and 30% more output for monsters can be enough.

AQW

Post #: 131

4/3/2024 10:27:22

Telcontar Arvedui I
Member

I uh, have a confession to make.

I blundered my numbers in the thought experiment Google Doc, the one linked in my post #121. The results - 250 END giving 15 to 20 percent extra baseline HP is not enough, except in the strictest competitive sense. I have therefore amended my suggestion to 250 END investment giving +20 to +40 percent of max HP at 0 END instead. +40% is the upper limit to account for really, really casual players, +20% as the lower limit to encourage players to put effort into adopting such reckless playstyles - which is IMO still very much possible without need for premium gear.

* * * * * * *

@ruleandrew - am I correct in assuming your ideas in post #118 are to be implemented wholesale, instead of individually? In any case, your Character HP Standard is pretty close with what I (and Chaotic, for the record) are proposing. 0.175/0.825 = ~21.2%, so you are suggesting 250 END gives about +21% more maximum HP compared to 0 END. Good to see we're arriving at similar proposals!

* * * * * * *

@Ogma - I really like your build concepts outlined in post #127, regarding CHA's interaction with the other 2 secondary stats. And I think END/CHA/LUK builds wouldn't really get a big buff out of it, provided we apply proper constraints to resource conversion (yes, I am taking the opportunity to plug my EO idea

). Sure, END/CHA/LUK would allow the beastmaster the choice to access every kind of companion, but they can still only have 1 Pet and 1 Guest out at any given time. So IMO, they're not going to be that much different from the Sol Neko / Bard of War builds we're seeing right now, the ones that heavily trade off player damage for companion output.

W.r.t. your idea at post #119, may I suggest having END interact with the weaker aspects of the armour lean instead? As in, END increases the outgoing weapon damage of FD armours, and reduces the incoming damage of FO armours. For Spellcaster armours, here's the kicker - END increases outgoing weapon damage. Thus, with END investment, FD armours would become much more attractive to 0-proc weapon users, FO armours get boring damage reduction but at least don't turn into walking nukes, and Spellcaster armours now have a fallback for when they run out of resources to cast (make magic staves great again!). And I'm willing to help to brainstorm possible ways to trigger it as well. Maybe the changes to armour lean don't come into effect until after the player intakes 40% of 0-END max HP (so 1183, currently) amount of damage, as long as they have any points invested in END - END only scales the extent of changes when those changes start to apply. Maybe the lean adaptations only after a set amount of turns, with END investment lowering the countdown.. All in all, it's a good idea - similar to an "athlete's zone", if you will - and I for one would love to see it further explored.

* * * * * * *

Dardiel - I really like 1st, b and Three. My only worry is that Three might require a lot of dev hours if implemented as an inherent player mechanic, although the devs definitely should know better than I do here. And even if I am right, that's still a really amazing shield/armour idea - I especially like that you set out specifically for this "turns of safety/defense followed by very powerful turns with high output" playstyle. As I've responded in the paragraph right above, I think it would be cool if we can somehow make "athlete's zone" into an END-specific aspect of player (and boss?) power.

* * * * * * *

@Chaotic - all right, given there are no big ongoing discussions regarding Heal Formulae and Max HP right now (I'm sure we can just backtrack and have parallel subtopics if need be anyway?), let's talk MP regeneration. The player turn model does dictate that MP is, after all, weapon damage - converted to a different form, but weapon damage nonetheless. If all 100% of Melee/Ranged weapons can be buffed, then so should the same for Magic weapons. Or at least, that's the gist I got from your opener.

But now that we're drawing a connection to Magic weapon damage, I'd like to raise something else to see if there's a connection there as well. AFAIK the game once had (still has?) a [*4/3] multiplier for Magic weapon-based buffing, except it turned INT builds into being as good as, if not better than, STR/DEX builds in weapon-based offense, while still retaining all the benefits offered by the MP bar. So when we're talking about allowing MP regeneration be scaled by stats, would there be any concern for a similar result to happen here? I don't have any concrete thoughts on the answer yet.....

My second line of thought is, how would you propose we prevent resource (regen/healing) abuse here, specific to MP? Pixel Ether, EoC, and to an extent Rejuvenating Necklace are prime targets here. If we follow through with my EO proposal, I guess we can do the same for Pixel Ether. As for the other two, I'm thinking of either Dardiel's all-resource per-turn softcap proposal, or we limit MP-specific healing to a certain amount of %Melee, probably on a per-item basis. My proposal on Diminished Healing Returns are currently tied only to HP Healing, so if we want to expand it to include MP's then I'll probably try and think of something to help with that.

Thirdly, why scale MP regen on END? Why not INT, the stat for Magic damage? This is a Healing thread after all, not an END thread, so it should be perfectly fine if I'm INTing here [:P]

< Message edited by Telcontar Arvedui I -- 4/3/2024 10:38:26 >

AQ	Post #: 132

4/3/2024 11:06:53

Ward_Point
Armchair Archivist

quote:

If healing is to be made worse for us is there support to an idea where it wouldn't take up a turn? We could see reduced output for turns where we first heal. Raising our hp when the initial concern is we have too much of it feels like a move in the opposite direction. Monster damage shouldn't go up so much that we need to almost 3x hp at 0. Cutting max hp close to 4k and adding between 10 and 30% more output for monsters can be enough.

quote:

I know for a fact any draconian nerfs to HP's, assumed HP's, and heals will create a massive D5 Avalanche of adjustments that will never end. And that doesn't even begin to mention the backlash that will result from altering items, and the draconian altering of END. Players will hate their CHA and their END being messed with either via the stat itself or items that use them.

If you nerf healing/hp's, you're going to have to re-evaluate panic, choke, eleshield, and maybe other things like defboost and maybe even stuns... If you left monster debuffs alone but severely nerfed HP's and healing, then debuffs will be even more preferred. Not needing to heal, when the heal is utter manure, will be much more preferred.

Instead of creating a massive snowball of endless issues that will need addressing, END should not be "the healing stat" but remain the durability stat, where a healing boost is apart of that equation. END does lack luster, and I'm on board with lowering top end HP's and replacing that with some things. But I also do not think this amount should be anywhere near as drastic as what's being cooked. Those who like END will HATE this.

Monsters simply need buffed, probably need style bonuses (maybe even beginning at 160 stat, too, or maybe even higher to make this more of an end-game thing), and dexterity needs something specific to monsters. I think the damage identity's need implemented for monsters, and all of the style bonuses exactly as the players received them.

Neither of you understand the proposal you are putting forth. No one here has proposed simply nerfing Player HP at 250 END in a vacuum. The Player HP nerf at 250 END is intended to be combined with other changes to actually make END & Healing both desirable.

Chaotic's numbers intend to normalize Player HP to Monster HP so that equal damage is dealt by both sides. You should have noticed by now that the damage a Player deals is much higher than a Monster. Essentially, the Player deals 404 damage per turn, and the Monster deals 151 damage per turn. Chaotic does take this to an extreme, however, it does solve some issues, you will not like how it turns out. Player HP Increases to 6817 but all numerical healing remains the same. You have utterly diminished the effect of Heals. Chaotic is not exaggerating that this will be the greatest nerf ever in the game. If we normalized everything based on 1 melee on 404 damage...

What you have proposed essentially works like this
CURRENT
Player HP at 0 END: 2958
Fairy Godmother Heal: 123 per turn
Expected Monster Damage: 151 Per turn

Normalization of Monster & Player HP
Player HP at 0 END: 8080
Fairy Godmother Heal: 123 per turn
Expected Monster Damage: 404

Your proposal would result in a Pet only healing ~25% of the Monster's damage per turn.

Using your own example:
When you increase Monster damage output, the Player still has to be able to survive 20 Turns. Ie: If you monster damage output, there needs to be a corresponding increase in Player HP because END is not assumed.

There are two sets of HP Costs.
151 for Expected Monster Damage
348 when a Player deals +100% Melee. This is because when the Player deals +100% Melee, the player takes 1 turn less of damage and some other modifiers that I'm not too familiar with.

If the player is expected to taking a 20% increase in damage, Player HP has to increase by 20%, therefore 2958 * 1.2 ~= 3550

HP Costs also go up proportionally:
Expected Monster Damage: 151 x 1.2 =~180
+100% melee is now worth 348 x 1.2 = 418

Fairy Godmother Heal: 123 per turn in both situations

Increasing Player HP actively diminishes the power of Healing.
Decreasing Player HP actively intensifies Healing's power because you heal more relative to Monster Damage/Your HP Pool.

AQ	Post #: 133

4/3/2024 11:14:01

Sapphire
Member

I'm personally alright entertaining HP valuations and healing valuations, especially as it pertain to the 3 different resources..as tbh, HP healing isn't the same as MP healing which isn't the same as SP healing.

What I personally would draw a hard line in the sand about, is making END required for healing...ie replacing anything and everything with END and causing heals to scale with it. IMO, END should only boost the heal.

If some solution can be had to heals and healing without redefining END as a whole and without having it alter a single item's code then perhaps I would entertain the idea.

Also, please do not tell me that I don't understand the proposal I make. It's insulting.

Post #: 134

4/3/2024 11:59:21

Aura Knight
Member

quote:

CURRENT
Player HP at 0 END: 2958
Fairy Godmother Heal: 123 per turn
Expected Monster Damage: 151 Per turn

To me this seems ok to keep. Monsters deal slightly higher expected damage than we heal. Do we really need a change? I know how weird it is to ask after 6 pages of comments but I have to still question the importance of the topic.

AQW

Post #: 135

4/3/2024 13:55:56

Dardiel
Member

I have yet another idea that's hopefully simpler/better than my previous (although I appreciate the support and would still be excited to see that idea make it in). This idea follows the same logic that END needs moments where you notice it, and looks at LUK since that's the only other stat that does things without having a designated gear slot or button. So if LUK gives you Lucky Strike, END gives you...

Reversal - on each monster hit, you have a 10% chance to reduce that hit's damage by [END/250]*100% melee. If the hit's damage would be reduced below 0, the excess % melee is stored; the next hit of damage from the player's side (which can include healing, and can include companion damage if the player doesn't hit) is increased by the stored value.

Example - 100% melee is 105 enemy damage and 395 player damage. An incoming hit would deal 50 damage and it gets hit by the Reversal; 50/105 is 47.6% melee, so the damage is reduced to 0 and the remaining 52.4% melee is stored to give the player side 0.524*395 = +207 on their next hit of damage.

Post #: 136

4/3/2024 15:13:42

Aura Knight
Member

Stored damage sounds neat. Similar to skills where you retaliate after a turn of no action.

Locked for an intermission/review. Please PM directly if you have dire new perspectives not raised already. ~Anim

< Message edited by AnimalKing -- 4/4/2024 17:11:13 >

AQW

Post #: 137

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 5 [6]

All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [AdventureQuest] >> AdventureQuest General Discussion >> RE: Healing

Page 6 of 6

Jump to:

Icon Legend

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Forum Content Copyright © 2018 Artix Entertainment, LLC.

"AdventureQuest", "DragonFable", "MechQuest", "EpicDuel", "BattleOn.com", "AdventureQuest Worlds", "Artix Entertainment"
and all game character names are either trademarks or registered trademarks of Artix Entertainment, LLC. All rights are reserved.
PRIVACY POLICY